Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EAST LOTHIAN (WESTERN DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS]. (By Order.)

Considered.

As amended, considered (under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899).

SCHEDULE.

EAST LOTHIAN (WESTERN DISTRICT) WATER.

Provisional Order to constitute and incorporate a Hoard for the supply of water to the western district of the County of East Lothian to transfer to the Board the water undertakings of the County Council and the Western District Committee of the County of East Lothian and the undertakings of the burghs of Preston-pans and Cockenzie and Port Set on to authorise the Board to construct additional waterworks to confer further powers on the Board and for other purposes.

CLAUSE 44.—(For protection of Henry Callander and Town Council of Tranent.)

The following provisions shall unless otherwise agreed on in writing between Henry Callander esquire of Prestonhall in the County of Midlothian or his successors in estate and the provost magistrates and councillors of the burgh of Tranent on the one part (in this Section referred to as the "first party") and the Board on the other part (in this Section referred to as the "second party") apply and have effect (that is to say):—

(2) The Town Council of Tranent shall notwithstanding anything in this Order contained be entitled to give a supply of water to the exempted subjects and for or towards this purpose shall have the use of the existing two-and-a-half inch cast iron pipe leading from the main pipe on the Tranent and Ormieton Road to Strawberry Lane, Elphinstone, without any pay-
ment to the Board therefor. The rights of the Board in and to the said two-and-a-half inch pipe between the places mentioned shall be and are hereby accordingly transferred to the first party. The first party shall give up any interest or right in the said two-and-a-half inch pipe through the village of Elphinstone west of Strawberry Lane:

(3) Until such time as the Board lay a new pipe for the purpose of supplying the village of Elphinstone and other subjects within their area to take the place of the two-and-a-half inch pipe transferred by this Section to the first party, the Board shall be entitled to use the said two-and-a-half inch pipe throughout its whole length provided and so long as they afford to the said farms of North and South Elphinstone a free supply of water.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "Board" ["without any payment to the Board"], and insert instead thereof the words "second party."

Leave out the word "Board"["The rights of the Board"], and insert instead thereof the words "second party."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "Board" ["until such time as the Board"], and insert instead thereof the words "second party."

Leave out the word "Board" ["the Board shall be entitled"], and insert instead thereof the words "second party."—[Sir J. Baud.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Power to open roads, etc.)

Provided that nothing in this Section shall extend to or authorise any interference with any telegraphic line (as defined by the Telegraph Act, 1878) or other property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General; Provided also that nothing in this Section shall extend to or authorise any interference with any works of any undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, to which the provisions of Section 15 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, apply except in accordance with and subject to the provisions of that Section.

Amendment made: Leave out "1919" ["Electricity(Supply) Acts, 1832 to 1919"], and insert instead thereof "1922."—[Sir J. Baird.)

CLAUSE 74.—(Saving for East Fortune Sanatorium.)

Nothing in this Order contained shall prejudice or affect the agreement between the Western Committee, the Commissioners
for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the South Eastern Counties of Scotland Joint Sanatorium Board relative to the supply of water to that sanatorium and the Board shall continue to supply water to that sanatorium upon the terms set out in that agreement.

Amendments made:

Leave out the word "that" ["to that sanatorium"], and insert instead thereof the words "East Fortune."

Leave out the words "continue to" ["the Board shall continue to supply water"]—[Sir J. Haird.]

CLAUSE121.—{Repayment of borrowed money.)

(1)The Board shall pay off all moneys borrowed by them under this Order within the respective periods following (hereinafter referred to as "the prescribed period"): —
As to money borrowed for the purposes (i) mentioned in the said Section within five years from the commencement of this Order.

(2)Any moneys received by the Board from the county council or the town councils representing any sinking fund shall be applied by the Board in repayment of moneys borrowed or owing by the county council or the town councils in respect of the water undertakings transferred by this Order or the supply of water to the water districts respectively or in repayment of moneys borrowed by the Board for the purpose (a) mentioned in the immediately pre ceding Section or l>e paid into a sinking fund which may be formed for the repayment of such last-mentioned moneys.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "purposes" ["As to money borrowed for the purposes"], and insert instead thereof the word "purpose."

In Sub-section (2), leave ou£ the word "purposes" ["moneys borrowed by the Board for the purposes"], and insert instead thereof the word "purpose."— [Sir J. Baird.]

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RETIRED OFFICERS (WAR SF.RVICE).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Under Secretary of State for India
whether, considering that the final recommendations of the Government of India have now been received, and that more than two years have elapsed since the question was first raised, he can state what decision has been arrived at on the question of the application to the Indian Army of the Royal Warrant of August, 1920, regarding the adjustment of the pay of retired officers of the Indian Army retained in the Army during the War beyond the date on which they became eligible for retirement?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I regret that I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant. Member on 28th November.

Sir C. YATE: Is it in the power of the Government of India to delay the application of a Royal Warrant for more than two years?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on the date in question, 28th November, was that this question was under consideration. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every step is being taken to accelerate the decision on the subject.

NON-CO-OPKKATIONMOVEMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the All-India Congress Committee is about equally divided now as to the propriety of so far modifying the non-co-operation policy as to sanction election to the Legislative Councils, and that the chief obstacle to this change of policy is that nearly all the Congress leaders have been in gaol, whereby they are debarred from standing for election unless some individual pardons or a general amnesty is declared; and, with a view to ending the present unsatisfactory position, will he consult with the Viceroy as to the best method of getting round the difficulty so that these leaders may have the chance to stand for the councils?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know how opinion stands in the Congress Committee. The members of the Civil Disobedience Inquiry Committee were' equally divided on the point, and it appears to be the case that one section among them put forward the view that so long as there was a rule disqualifying persons who had been con-
victed it would be inconsistent with their self-respect and dignity to lift the ban upon the Legislatures. I am not prepared to recommend the Secretary of State to suggest to the Viceroy that he should, or to consult him as to how he can, remove the scruples of these gentlemen.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps the Noble Lord would not like their scruples to be removed?

Earl WINTERTON: I said that I am not prepared to recommend that action should be taken to remove them.

Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that it is the want of protection from vilification by the non-cooperation Press in India that, amongst other reasons, is driving many officers of the Civil Services and police in India to apply for proportionate pensions before completing their service, the Secretary of State will consider the question of bringing into force some more effective method of putting a stop to this abuse of its servants, both British and Indian, than exists at present?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to his question last week regarding actions for defamation against newspapers. These actions appear to be having some effect, but I am sure that the Government of India would willingly consider any more effective method that my hon. and gallant Friend can suggest. According to the latest information that has reached me, there has been appreciable improvement, and conditions may fairly be said to be more hopeful than they were 18 months ago.

McGRIGOR'S BANK.

Lieut-Colonel POWNALL: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any steps were taken between 6th October, when McGrigor's intimated to the War Office they were in difficulties, and 13th October, when the Paymaster-General made them large payments, to warn the Paymaster-General of the in-advisability of making such payments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut-Colonel Guinness): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member
to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) on 28th November.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the last date prior to the 6th October on which the accounts of McGrigor's Bank were submitted to the War Office; and whether such accounts had been audited?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The accounts of McGrigor's Bank were never submitted to the War Office, but accounts for the receipt and disbursement of the public money entrusted to the firm in their capacity as Army agents for certain corps and Departments were rendered quarterly and were audited at the War Office. The last account, for the June quarter, was received on 8th August.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISHARMY.

TEMPORARY AND RETIRED OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many Special Reserve, Militia, Territorial, temporary and retired officers are still being employed?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The number on 1st November was 749. These officers are practically all "Specialists," for example, Royal Engineers, Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Corps of Military Accountants, Chaplains, for whom no qualified regular officers can be provided as replacements. Reductions are being effected as rapidly as circumstances permit, and the present strength will be considered reduced by 1st April next.

LOYAL NORTH LANCASHIRE REGIMENT (LANCE-CORPORAL A. HATTON).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lance-corporal Andrew Hatton, No. 201,207, 2/4th Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, was reported on 8th November, 1917, as wounded and on 1st December as missing from 26th October, 1917, and that on 3rd October, 1918, he was definitely presumed to be dead from 26th October, 1917; whether there was any pay and other allowances due to this soldier on that date; and, if so, to whom were they paid?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The sum of £4 5s. 6d. due to the estate of the late soldier on 26th October, 1917, the date on which he was subsequently presumed to have died, was paid to his mother, Mrs. Sarah Ann Hatton, on the 30th September, 1919. A further sum of £13, balance of War gratuity, was paid to her on the 1st December, 1919.

SUPERNUMERARY OFFICERS.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of officers employed in England in discharge of military duties and not on the strength of any regimental unit; and the number so employed in July, 1914?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not in a position to give the figures for England separately, but the number of officers so employed in the United Kingdom in 1914 was approximately 1850, compared with some 1,980 at the present time. Owing to the withdrawal of troops from Ireland and other causes there will be a considerable decrease by the end of the present financial year.

MEATSUPPLY,CHICHESTER BARRACKS.

Sir WILLIAM BIRD: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to an advertisement inviting tenders for the supply of frozen meat to Chichester Barracks; and whether this policy of excluding home produce is in future to be applied to other commodities such as rifles, equipment, and clothing required for the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: At Chichester, as at all stations in Great Britain, frozen meat is supplied to the troops on grounds of economy. There is no intention of adopting a similar course in the case of the other supplies mentioned.

Sir W. BIRD: Having regard to the serious condition of British agriculture, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman get into touch with the Minister of Agriculture and see whether he cannot arrange for British meat to be supplied to British soldiers in this country?

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that
the price paid to the British producer is considerably below the price at which foreign meat can be bought, and will he, therefore, consider buying direct from the British producer?

Mr. LAMB: Is it not an injustice to the British soldier that he should be deprived of the right of having British meat?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I will certainly get into touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend. The policy of the War Office, undoubtedly, is to give preference, wherever they possibly can, to homegrown produce, but cost has to be taken into account. I am informed that to supply the Army with home-grown meat to the exclusion of chilled beef would double the cost, and I am afraid that is what we cannot face.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE.

Mr. F. GRAY: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the precise nature of the work at the War Office which now necessitates the employment of an increased number of officers from 174 to 325, and which he anticipates will justify the employment of 297 as against 174 after the 1st April, 1923?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The additional work may be broadly divided as follows:
First: Outstanding questions and claims arising directly out of the events and circumstances of the War.
Second: Questions connected with the post-War settlement, for instance, the garrisoning of the new territories and the occupation of the Rhine provinces.
Third: The reduction of the Army, its reorganisation in the light of war experience, and the consequential revision of all training and other manuals, books of regulations, etc.
Fourth: Permanent new work—for instance, the extended employment of mechanical transport and the introduction of new types of munitions and war matériel, and new services, such as signals, education, tanks, and cost accounting.
Fifth: The general increase in the volume of correspondence to be handled.

Mr. GRAY: 13.
further asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of separate premises now occupied in England by persons under the control of his office, and the number of premises so occupied in July, 1914?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Excluding War Department property, the number of separate premises occupied by the War Department in England at present is about 330, and the corresponding number in 1914 was 525. I am not in a position to give similar figures for the Territorial Army, but there has been a decrease.

CABINET SECRETARIAT.

Mr. FOOT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister what were the respective positions in the Cabinet Secretariat staff held by the 19 members thereof who have been transferred to other Departments, and what were their salaries before they were so transferred; and if he will state to what Departments the said 19 members have respectively been transferred, and what their salaries are in their new Departments?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): Twelve permanent clerks on the scale of £60 to £250 per annum plus bonus and seven temporary clerks on the scales of 66s. 10d. to 73s. 7d. and 74s. to 87s. 7d. inclusive a week, all of whom performed clerical duties in the Cabinet Secretariat, have been transferred to the Departments enumerated in my reply to the hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 30th November, their respective rates of salary either remaining unchanged or being reduced on transfer to Departments in which the prescribed hours of attendance are not so long.

Mr. FOOT: If there was any need for the transfer of these several clerks, was there a shortage in the other Departments? If so, why was not the shortage met before then?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that the hon. Member has a question on the subject-later on.

Mr. FOOT: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the anticipated saving of £20,000 in the Cabinet Secretariat Vote is a net saving to the Treasury, or whether this sum represents only the anticipated reduction on the Cabinet Secretariat Vote?

Mr. BALDWIN: As stated in the reply to the hon. Member on the 7th instant, a saving of approximately £20,000 will be effected on the Vote for the Cabinet Secretariat. This amount also represents the ultimate net saving to the Treasury, as the staff transferred fill existing vacancies in other Departments for which staff must in any case be provided.

Mr. FOOT: Seeing that the total annual cost of the Cabinet Secretariat was returned at £32,000, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain a saving of £20,000, inasmuch as only the smaller part of the Cabinet Secretariat has been dealt with?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would like notice of that question, as it would involve going through all the details concerning the people who have been removed.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. BECKER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. BALDWIN: Provision of £87,434 is taken in the Civil Service Commission Estimate (Class II, 20) for the current year for expenditure on this service. Receipts from examination fees were estimated at £31,000. It is, however, now anticipated that the expenditure will be £61,634 and the receipts £19,000, giving net cost £42,634. The expenditure figures given do not include amounts (total, £24,687) provided for this service in other Estimates, as detailed in the note to the Civil Service Commission Estimate.

DISPUTES (CONCILIATIOM MACHINERY).

Mr. EDWARDS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his attitude towards the Temporary Staff Confederation and adopt towards them what the Government always advise in other trade disputes, namely, the setting up of some conciliation machinery to deal with the disputes or to adopt the system of arbitration?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should remind the hon. Member that conciliation machinery already exists in the Civil Service and that the matter to which he refers was discussed through Whitley machinery for two months before executive action was taken. As regards the alternative suggestion of arbitration in this matter, I
have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member on the 29th November.

ADMIKALTY.

Mr. LAMBERT: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that according to Cd. 1,665 the pre-War naval personnel was 145,600, with an Admiralty staff of 4,400, while on the 1st April last the naval personnel was 121,400, with an Admiralty staff of 9,100; whether he is satisfied that it requires a doubled Admiralty staff to deal with a personnel reduced by 24,200 officers and men; if so, can he give reasons for his satisfaction; and, if not, will he effect reductions in the non-fighting forces borne oh naval Votes?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. If the right hon. Member would refer to the answer which I gave to the late Member for Pontefract on 16th June of last year he will see that the figures of Admiralty staff given at the two dates are not comparable. The comparable pre-War figure, which includes outport establishments, should be 5,321 and not 4,400. The figure for 1st November last is 8,546. As regards the justification for the numbers at present employed, I would call the right hon. Member's attention both to the reply referred to and to the late First Lord's remarks on this subject in the statement accompanying the Navy Estimates. The numbers of staff employed are under continuous scrutiny, and the numbers are kept at the lowest possible limit compatible with the efficient conduct of the work. A reduction of 1,655 has been made during the past 12 months, and the numbers will be further reduced continuously throughout the financial year.

Mr. LAMBERT: How is it that with a much reduced naval personnel it is necessary to have such a largely increased staff at the Admiralty?

Mr. AMERY: I hope to give the right hon. Member details on that point when he raises it in Debate.

MILITARY MANœUVRES, POLAND.

Mr.MOREL: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he
has any information as to the military manœuvres which have recently taken place in Posen under the supervision of French generals co-operating with the Polish general staff; whether he is aware that Poland is fortifying the Hela peninsula and connecting the harbour of Gdingen by strategic railways linked up with the Free State of Danzig; that large quantities of munitions and petrol are being accumulated in the free port of Danzig for the use of the French fleet; and that the sums expended on these military preparations are derived from the reparation payments supposedly earmarked for the reconstruction of the devastated areas of France?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The manœuvres of July, 1922, which I presume are referred to, were conducted entirely under Polish supervision. The only senior French officer present attended as a spectator, in compliance with the customary invitation extended to all foreign military attaches. No foundation can be traced for the remainder of the; suggestions made in the question.

Mr. MOREL: Is the Department in receipt regularly of Polish newspapers, in which some very remarkable disclosures have been made?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVAN.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 20.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Govan parish council are finding it very difficult to meet the heavy expenditure owing to payment of relief to able-bodied unemployed; whether he is aware that the present rate in Govan parish is 15s. 10d. per head of the population, while in the neighbouring parish of Cathcart the rate is only 5¾d. per head; and what action can he take to equalise the burden?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): My Noble Friend is aware that many parishes in the industrial areas in Scotland, including the parish of Govan, are incurring heavy expenditure on account of the payment of relief to the able-bodied unemployed. The amounts expended to
date in the parishes of Govan and Gathcart per head of the population are substantially as stated in the question. Provision was made in the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, to enable parish councils to spread the burden over a number of years. The whole position of parish councils in relation to the relief of the able-bodied unemployed is at present being examined.

POOE RELIEF, SCOTLAND.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 22.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, what is the total sum paid by parish councils in Scotland to unemployed; and what is the increase in the poor rate consequent on the payment made to able-bodied men and women?

Sir J. BAIRD: The amount of expenditure incurred by parish councils in Scotland in affording relief to destitute able-bodied unemployed persons up to the 2nd instant was approximately £1,650,000. This amount, if distributed equally over the industrial parishes affected, would represent a rate of approximately 1s. 3d. in the £ on the aggregate gross rental of these parishes. It is not, however, possible to state what is the actual increase over all in the poor rate consequent on this expenditure, as this rate is levied not on gross rental, but on a figure arrived at after making deductions, the amount of which varies in the different parishes. It should, however, be kept in view, that parish councils will not require to assess for the whole of this expenditure during the current year as the greater part of the expenditure is being met by loans repayable over a term of years raised under the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921. The burden will therefore be spread over a number of years.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Does the right hon. Baronet consider it fair that one parish should be paying 1d. or 2d. in the £ a year, while another is paying 15s.?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Government take steps to see that the burden placed on the poorer areas, as against well-to-do areas, is put on something like an equality?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want an answer to my question.

Sir J. BAIRD: I gave the hon. Member a very full answer to his question. As regards the other point, it is a very much larger question than is raised by the question on the Paper.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that people drawing unemployment insurance benefit, when they are compelled to go wholly on the parish, fall out of benefit?

Sir J. BAIRD: Surely that is a much wider question than the question down on the Paper? If the hon. Member will put it on the Paper, I will endeavour to answer him.

MID-SCOTLAND SHIP CANAL.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 23.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the urgent need of employment in Scotland, and of the post-War evidence of the strategic and commercial value of a mid-Scotland ship canal, he will take steps to set up a committee, consisting of representatives of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the local authorities, and the shipping interests, to inquire into the advisability of pro ceeding with this national enterprise?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend has consulted the Departments concerned as to their views on the proposal to set up a committee such as the hon. Member suggests. As the result, he doubts whether any good purpose would be served by further inquiry into this matter, which has been considered on several occasions in recent years.

ROAD WORK (GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in normal times the Treasury sanctioned a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of approved road work undertaken by local authorities, he can see his way to increase the percentage rate of grant in order to give them some inducement to expedite and anticipate work which they otherwise would not put in hand and in this way further reduce the amount of unemployment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The sum at present
available for distribution from the Road Fund will not permit of any general increase above the normal grant of 50 per cent, of the approved expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of Class I roads and on other road works of importance. Facilities are being given to highway authorities by the Ministry of Transport to expedite and anticipate work with a view to mitigating unemployment, and in addition, as the hon. Member is aware, assistance is given from the funds at the disposal of the Unemployment Grants Committee towards road works among other works of public utility.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the supplementary grants from the Unemployed Grants Committee be given for the same work as that for which the Road Board are giving the 50 per cent., so as to give an inducement to the local authorities to have useful work carried out?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: No. The grants by the Unemployed Grants Committee are for third-class roads and not for first and second roads.

INSURANCE FUNDS (TREASURY PAYMENTS).

Mr. NICHOL: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sums paid during the last three years by the Treasury into the Unemployment Insurance Funds; and whether such payments are grants or loans?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. The total sums paid by way of State grant to the Unemployment Fund (including the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Funds during the last three years are:—



£


For the financial year 1920–21
2,168,640


For the financial year 1921–22
8,123,430


For the financial year 1922–23 (8½ months)
8,273,350



£18,565,420


In addition to this, repayable advances have been made out of the Consolidated Fund during the last 18 months totalling £14,980,000.

Mr. NICHOL: Does this not compare very unfavourably with the amount of
the subsidies—£167,000,000 as compared with £18,000,000 subsidy and £14,000,000 loan to the unemployed?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is a matter of opinion. I do not think it arises out of the answer.

Mr. NICHOL: It is a matter very largely of fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

STUDENTS' GRANTS (SCOTLAND).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 24.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether grants under the Grants Committee of the Scottish Education Department for courses of study by students who had served in the War, and had accepted terms and conditions imposed upon them, have been withheld because of changes and difficulties in practical training over which these students had no control; and will he take steps to have these grants renewed?

Sir J. BAIRD: So far as the Department are aware, the reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and therefore the second part does not arise. If, however, the hon. Member has any specific case or cases in his mind, perhaps he will be good enough to communicate details to my Noble Friend, when full inquiry will be made.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).

Major M. WOOD: 25.
asked how many schemes for the settlement of ex-service men initiated prior to 1922 were abandoned by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in 1922; how many continued schemes have been converted into Part II purchase schemes in 1922; how many Part I and Part II schemes for settlement have been intiated in 1922; and how many men have been placed on such schemes?

Sir J. BAIRD: The reply to the first part of the question is 15; to the second part, 4; to the third part, one Part I scheme and 15 Part II schemes; and to the last part, 85.

Major WOOD: What was the reason for the abandonment of all those schemes?

Sir J. BAIRD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, I will get an answer.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 26.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as re-presenting the Secretary for Scotland, the number of applicants for land, distinguishing ex-service men, who have been settled on the land in Orkney and Shetland, respectively, since the Armistice, and the number of applications still remaining to be dealt with?

Sir J. BAIRD: In Orkney the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have settled since the Armistice 10 civilian and nine ex-service applicants, the numbers remaining to be dealt with being 143 civilians and 113 ex-service applicants. In Shetland the corresponding figures are 64 and 89 settled and 462 and 153 outstanding.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can nothing be done to expedite this matter?

An HON. MEMBER: He does not know.

Sir J. BAIRD: I know everything is being done that can be done.

Major M. WOOD: 27.
asked the First Commissioners of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, how many men who have been given holdings under land settlement schemes instituted by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have not yet had their rents fixed; and whether, in view of the unfairness of placing men in holdings without informing them of the financial liability they are incurring, he will take steps to put an end to this anomaly?

Sir J. BAIRD: In reply to the first part of the question, rents have been intimated in all but 29 cases. The second part of the question presumably refers to the total annual burdens, including building loan repayments. Holders are informed of approximate burden before entry, but the final figures cannot be notified till the completion of buildings. The position is at present complicated by the fall in building values, concerning which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of 28th ultimo to the hon. Member for East Fife.

TRAINING(COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain why the Report of the Select Committee on the Training and Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men, printed on poor paper and with only a paper
cover, is priced at 12s. 6d.; is he aware that this price puts it out of the reach of a large number of disabled men and others who are greatly interested in the subject; and can he arrange for the supply of copies at a greatly reduced rate to organisations such as the British Legion?

Mr. BALDWIN: This publication consists of 493 pages of closely printed letterpress and table matter, and the paper on which it is printed is that generally used for Parliamentary Reports. It was priced according to the current scale for Parliamentary Papers, which represents no more than the cost of printing and publishing.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Does that not mean that only 800 copies published at 12s. 6d. would cover the entire cost of printing and publishing?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 21.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will inquire into the actions of the Scottish Mineowners' Defence and Mutual Insurance Association re its methods of withholding and making payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and if, as the result of that investigation, it is found that undue pressure has been put upon injured miners to accept less than they are legally entitled to, what action does he propose taking to enforce the provisions of the Compensation Acts on the above association?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have no authority under the Act to intervene in regard to disputes between employers and workers as to the amount of compensation to which a workman is legally entitled or the withholding of the payment of compensation. These are matters which can only be determined by a judicial tribunal. I understand, however, that an offer has recently been made by the directors of the association to meet the workmen's representatives and go into the allegations, and I hope that in this way it may be possible to arrive at a satisfactory understanding.

TUBERCULOUS MEAT (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: 23.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that attempts are being made to expose for sale in Glasgow portions of cattle infected with tuberculosis; and if he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend is not aware that attempts are being made to expose for sale in Glasgow portions of cattle infected with tuberculosis. If the hon. Member has reason to believe that any such attempts are being made and will be so good as to furnish particulars to my Noble Friend he will cause immediate inquiry to be made.

NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (MEALS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 29.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he proposes to withdraw Circular 51 of the Scottish Education Department, in view of the unfortunate position in which it has placed education authorities and parish councils with regard to the feeding of necessitous children?

Sir J. BAIRD: As Circular 51 simply conveys the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland as to the legal position in regard to the feeding of necessitous children, my Noble Friend does not see that any practical advantage could be gained from its withdrawal.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Baronet make inquiries as to the condition of the children in the industrial areas, owing to the parish councils and the education authorities trying to shift the burden of providing for these children on to other shoulders?

Sir J. BAIRD: Will the hon. Member please put down a question.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Baronet state what the Government are prepared to do if it is proved that the circular is really withholding certain rights of education authorities who are desirous of feeding necessitous children?

Sir J. BAIRD: The circular, as stated in the question, simply contains the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legal position, in order that the
legal opinion may be known by the authorities.

HOME RULE.

Mr. STEPHEN: 30.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Government proposes to introduce a Measure of Home Rule for Scotland at an early date?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Western Derbyshire (Mr. C. White).

Mr. STEPHEN: Has that answer been dictated by the fact that the people of Scotland are so opposed to the Government whom he represents?

Sir J. BAIRD: We are of opposite opinions as to what the people of Scotland think.

Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think so. I represent the majority.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the Government be prepared to give facilities for such a Measure if introduced by a private Member?

Sir J. BAIRD: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

UNEMPLOYED BOYS AND GIRLS.

Mr. MAXTON: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will make arrangements for the continued education and training of unemployed boys and girls of 14 to 18 years of age, under the auspices of education authorities in conjunction with the juvenile advisory committees of the Labour Exchanges?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Peebles and Southern Midlothian (Mr. Westwood).

PRISONS.

Mr. MAXTON: 33.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will give consideration to the establishment of a first division in Scottish prisons, in which prisoners for certain offences would receive the same treatment as similar offenders in English prisons; and if he
will proceed to revise the dietary of all prisoners?

Sir J. BAIRD: The suggestion contained in the first part of the question has frequently been considered, but it is not thought desirable to introduce such a differentiation of treatment between classes of prisoners as is suggested by the hon. Member. Diets have been recently revised, and are subject to constant revision under the existing rules.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the case that such differentiation exists, but is in the hands of the Prison Commissioners in Scotland, who have neither legal nor judicial experience, whereas in England the differentiation rests in the discretion of the Judge on the Bench?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would rather not answer that question without notice.

DEPUTATIONS TO LONDON.

Mr. SHINWELL: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the expenditure involved in sending deputations from Scottish local authorities to London in connection with Parliamentary business, he can arrange so that all such business can be trans acted through the Scottish Office at Edinburgh?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend is in sympathy with the hon. Member's desire to limit the expenditure by Scottish local authorities on deputations, and, so far as he is concerned, he will endeavour to arrange, whenever possible, to receive such deputations in Edinburgh.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will my right hon. Friend's Noble Friend communicate with the Scottish local authorities, in order to get business again transacted through Edinburgh.

Sir J. BAIRD: The object of putting a question and receiving an answer in the House of Commons is to make the facts public.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a proposal which would be very unpopular with the deputations?

HOUSING.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 35.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing
the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that the city of Glasgow requires 57,000 new houses, and in that city the number of houses condemned as unfit for habitation is 13,000; and what steps will he take to both urge and help the local authority to solve both of those problems?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend is aware of the estimates on which the figures given are based. As regards the last part of the question, the provision to be made under the State-aided housing scheme includes the building of 4,854 houses by the corporation, 102 houses by public utility societies, and 142 houses by private enterprise. It is understood that the corporation are also preparing a slum clearance scheme in respect of which, if approved, they will be entitled to participate in the annual State grant of £30,000 earmarked for this purpose. The question of further assistance being given by the State to enable local authorities to deal with the housing problem is at present engaging the attention of the Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In regard to the slum clearances, which only apply to 400 houses of 13,000, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have it applied to the whole 13,000?

Sir J. BAIRD: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. NICH0L: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that house factors in Glasgow and the West of Scotland have issued letters to tenants stating that the present Government, through the Prime Minister, has given to the country indication that proprietors will not be called upon to refund rents under the Kerr v. Bryde decision, and demanding continued payment of the increase of rent decreed to be illegal; and whether he will take steps to have the confusion in this matter cleared up?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend has had his attention drawn to a case in which a Glasgow house factor has issued a letter of the kind referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on this subject yesterday.

Mr. NICHOL: As the answer given yesterday conveyed nothing, may I ask
if the communication referred to has not caused more confusion in Scotland than the original scheme of the Prime-Minister's indication?

Sir J. BAIRD: I think everybody can form their own opinion upon it.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the answers given to these questions, will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon the Prime Minister to have somebody on the Treasury Bench who understands something about Scottish affairs?

INFANTILE MORTALITY, GORBALS DIVISION.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if his attention has been drawn to the high death rate among children below the age of 12 months in the Gorbals Division as against the low death rate in the Cathcart Division; will he state what is the reason for this; and what steps will he take to save child life in the Gorbals Division?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend is informed that in 1921 the death rate among infants was higher in Gorbals municipal ward than in Cathcart municipal ward. It is not possible within the scope of an answer to a question to discuss the possible explanations of this difference. With regard to the last part of the question the Glasgow Corporation, assisted by a grant from public funds, have in operation a maternity service and child welfare scheme one of the objects of which is to save child life. Special attention is given under this scheme to the needs of the Gorbals Division.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the action of the State in issuing Circular 51, that scheme is largely in abeyance and that children are dying, and can he say what steps will be taken to withdraw the circular?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have withdrawn the money that was being spent, and left the local authorities in a position in which they are not able to do it?

Sir J. BAIRD: A sum of money has been withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYACOLONY.

LABOUR ORDINANCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the ordinance amending the forced labour ordinance of Kenya Colony has yet been passed through the legislative council of Kenya; and, if not, can he say to what this delay is due?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The ordinance has passed through the Legislative Council, but in order to provide for certain Amendments considered necessary by the Secretary of State it will be necessary for it to be re-committed. The delay in completing this legislation is due to the necessity for obtaining drafts of the proposed law from Kenya, Uganda and Zanzibar, and for considering and collating the drafts when received.

KILINDINI HARBOUR.

Sir C. YATE: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics on what grounds the question of suspending operations on the deep-water pier in Kilindini Harbour has been raised locally; and whether the original estimate of a probable total revenue of £120,000 a year still holds good?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My information is obtained from Press reports, which indicate that it was thought by acquiring the wharf which has been constructed by private enterprise at another point on Mombasa Island, the requirements of the next few years would be sufficiently met. It has also been stated in the Press that it has been decided to proceed with the Government scheme. I have no information as to whether the estimate of revenue from the Government wharf still holds good, and the matter must depend on the progress of trade in the interval before the wharf is complete.

Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this local representation to see whether economy cannot be effected?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has been considered, and I gather that the privately-constructed wharf is not sufficiently good to be regarded as of permanent value to the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUPERANNUATION).

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon it will be possible for the 500 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force who have applied for superannuation or retirement under Article 10 of the Treaty to be released?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the applications of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who desire to retire under Article 10 of the Treaty are under consideration by the Free State Government, but I am unable at present to say when their decisions will be announced.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any tribunal which deals with' questions of this sort?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

PUBLIC SERVANTS (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can assure the House that the verbal guarantee given by the former Leader of the House on 19th December, 1921, and repeated by the former Colonial Secretary on 13th March, 1922, that His Majesty's Government will be the guarantor of the pensions and compensation granted under Article 10 of the Treaty, is as valid and effectual as if such guarantee were embodied in a Statute; and, if he is unable to give such assurance, whether he will state the reasons, if any, why such verbal guarantee should not be embodied in a Statute?

Mr. BALDWIN: I can add nothing to the answer I have already given to my hon. and learned Friend on the 5th December, and to the assurances and explanations which were given by the Government both here and in another place during the Debates on the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question, which affects a very large number of loyal public servants in Ireland, has never yet been answered I Can he give any reason for not answering it?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not agree with my hon and learned Friend. They are protected by statute under the Treaty.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Was a verbal guarantee given, to be embodied in a statutory guarantee, or not?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly not. I can see no reason for embodying it in a statutory guarantee, on the assumption that people already affected by the guarantee are going to break their word.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the unsatisfactory character of the answer, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment to-night.

FIREARMS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to whom British subjects, whose firearms were, given up to the late Royal Irish Constabulary, should now make application, with a view to the possible restoration to them of their property?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Applications for the return of arms to owners resident in the area of the Free State cannot be entertained unless accompanied by a permit from the Free State authorities authorising the owner to have such arms in his possession. All such applications and all applications for the return of arms to owners resident in England should be addressed to the War Office.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it the War Office here, or the Irish War Office?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The War Office here.

MALICIOUS INJLTRIES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will say of the compensation already paid by the British Government in respect of pre-truce awards how much has been paid in respect of personal injury, and how much for damage or destruction of property?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The amount of compensation paid in respect of pre-truce awards in personal injury cases is approximately £2,240,000. As regards property cases, the responsibility for payment, in the first place, rests with the Irish Government and the amounts paid from Imperial funds are in the nature
of recoverable advances. These payments, which include payments made in a limited number of post-truce cases, amount approximately to £137,000.

Major PAGET: Does the hon. Gentleman think there is any chance of recovering this money?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House as to the procedure which should be adopted by persons who have suffered injury or loss in Ireland since the Truce and who have so far been unable to obtain a decree for compensation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A reply to this question is given in the Public Notice No. 20, published in the "Dublin Gazette" of November 21st. As it is a long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a copy of the Notice in the OFFICIAL KEPORT, and as it provides for a new procedure in claiming compensation, I am also circulating it to the Press in order that it may have the maximum publicity possible.

Following is the notice:

Public Notice No. 20.
Compensation in respect of damage to or destruction of property inflicted since the 11th July, 1921.

(1) By a Resolution passed on 22nd September, 1922, Dail Eireann adopted the principle that a proportion of the compensation recoverable in respect of damage to or destruction of property inflicted since 11th July, 1921, and up to a date to be fixed should, under approved conditions, be borne as a national liability. It is proposed, in due course, to proceed with the legislation proper for giving effect to this decision, but in the meantime, in order that the determination of awards may not be unduly delayed, it has been decided, pursuant to a further Resolution of Dail Eireann, dated 1st November, 1922, to proceed forthwith with the Parliamentary steps which are necessary or proper for such determination.
(2) It is accordingly hereby notified to all concerned that all claims for compensation as aforesaid, except such claims as may already have been discharged should be submitted with the least possible delay. Every claim should be made out in triplicate, one copy being sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin, one copy to the secretary of the county council or town clerk of the county borough council in whose area the damage or destruction occurred, and one copy to the Clerk of the Crown and Peace of the
2582
same area. Claims should be made upon the special forms which have been prescribed for this purpose and which may be obtained free of charge on application to the secretary of the county council or town clerk of the county borough council concerned.
(3) Persons who may already have obtained decrees in respect of damage to or destruction of property inflicted since the 11th July, 1821, should, notwithstanding that fact, make renewed application in accordance with the Public Notice.
(4) For the purpose of making a claim under this Notice any loss of property not due to accident may be deemed to be damage to or destruction of property, but it is not on that account to be assumed that compensation will necessarily be payable in respect of such loss.

Dublin, this 21st day of November, 1922.

CROWN PROPERTY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say when the final settlement will be taken as between the British and Free State Governments in respect of the vice-regal lodge and other buildings and lands, the property of the Crown, lands, barracks, and buildings, the property of the British War Office or other British Government Departments, and for pieces of artillery, small arms, ammunition, and military equipment supplied to the late Provisional Government of the South of Ireland?

Mr. BALDWIN: Negotiations with a view to the settlement of these questions are in progress, but owing to the. preoccupation of the Free State Government with other urgent matters, I regret that I cannot indicate when a filial settlement may be expected.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will legislation by this House be necessary to ratify this final settlement?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think so, I could not say positively without looking into it.

NIGERIA(IRRIGATIONSCHEMES).

Mr. HANNON: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the reported irrigation scheme, subsidised by the French Government, to promote cotton growing on the Niger, His Majesty's Government will consider the initiation of a similar scheme in British territories?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that any scheme for irrigating land in that portion of the Valley of the Niger which falls within the Protectorate of Nigeria is required, in view of the ample rainfall of most of the parts of Nigeria through which the river runs. But the Government of Nigeria is alive to the possibilities of works for water storage and irrigation in the drier districts in the north of Nigeria; and has recently asked that an irrigation engineer should be engaged to report on such schemes in Sokoto Province. The area in Nigeria in which cotton can be grown without irrigation and within easy reach of the railway is, however, so large that I doubt if any irrigation scheme would be justified if it were carried out solely in order to increase the production of cotton.

TANGANYIKA (RAILWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS).

Mr. HANNON: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount expended since the Armistice upon the repair and improvement of railway and public works in the Tanganyika Territory; and whether the trade returns for the territory show any prospect of the Territory ever paying its own way?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The special expenditure incurred by the civil administration of the Tanganyika Territory upon the repair and improvement of railways and public works in the Territory for the three years 1918 to 1921 is as follows:—


1918–1919
…
…
…
£3,543


1919–1920
…
…
…
£31,446


1920–1921
…
…
…
£90,775


For the year 1921–1922, £287,738 was provided on this account, and for the year 1922–1923, £479,967. When the Territory was under German administration it was in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid, but the grant-in-aid had been steadily decreasing in the years preceding the War, and in 1914 the Territory had reached a point when it almost paid its way. There is every reason to hope that when trade revives and the repair of the damage resulting from the years of War is completed, the development of the resources of the Territory will enable it to become self-supporting.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to save a great deal of time if Ministers would shorten their replies?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members can help in that matter. The suggestion I would make is that hon. Members shall put unstarred questions when detailed information is wanted.

TRINIDAD(INCOME TAX).

Mr. HANNON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Legislature of Trinidad, drawing its attention to the inequitable effect on British industrial interests of its recent Ordinance rendering firms and companies non-resident in the island, but doing business there through resident agents, liable to Income Tax on the profits earned in the island?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: An Interdepartmental Committee was appointed at the beginning of this year to investigate all problems in connection with the Income Tax Laws of the Colonies and Protectorates, including the provisions of the Ordinance to which the hon. Member refers. Their Report has been received and will shortly be laid before the House. The Report contains certain recommendations on the subject of the taxation of agents, and the Government of Trinidad will be asked to take these recommendations into consideration.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND TITLES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during the consideration of the Chartered Company's claim to the commercial ownership of the lands of Northern Rhodesia before Earl Buxton's Committee, the representatives of this company strongly urged that they should be allowed to come to some arrangement with the Colonial Office instead of the question being submitted to a legal decision by the Privy Council; whether Earl Buxton's Committee reached the unanimous conclusion that a private arrangement would be unsatisfactory, and that any solution reached must be in
a legal form which would not be open to challenge by any of the parties affected in Northern Rhodesia; and whether the Secretary of State is prepared to renew the promise of his predecessor to accept the findings of Earl Buxton's Committee and refer the case to the Privy Council?

Mr. BONWICK: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that nearly two years have elapsed since the Secretary of State appointed a Committee under Earl Buxton to consider the land question of Northern Rhodesia, and that this Committee reported that the only satisfactory method of dealing with the land titles of Northern Rhodesia would be to obtain a legal decision which would not be open to challenge, and recommended that the whole matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; whether he will take into consideration the great inconvenience caused by these delays; and if he will take action which will secure the early submission of a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council1?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As regards the first two parts of the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the position is explained in paragraphs 8–14 of the Second Report of Lord Buxton's Committee (Cmd. 1471). As regards the third part, the Secretary of State has not yet had time fully to examine the issues involved, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that any statement should be made by the Government on the subject of German reparations or of the application of sanctions to Germany by the French Government before the rising of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): As the House is aware, the conversations which have been taking place in London are to be resumed in Paris at the beginning of January. In these circumstances, it would not be possible for me to refer to the discussions which
have already taken place. There is, however, one subject, the question of European Allied Debts, which has been referred to in the Press, and as it may be regarded as, to a certain extent, a departure from our previous policy, I think it better to give, as far as I can recall them, the exact words used by me in connection with it. I said that it would not be right that the settlement should be fixed in such a way that we only, of all the Allied countries, would be virtually paying an indemnity. What did seem fair was to consider the whole amount that would be obtained from Germany and to say—as you are not getting all you expect from Germany—we must reduce our claim. For that reason, and I thought this was an important statement, if we saw some chance of a complete settlement with a prospect of finality, we would be willing to run a certain risk in the end of having to pay more to the United States of America than Great Britain would receive from the Allies and Germany combined. But I was sure that all would agree that it would be foolish to make such a concession if the whole question were going to be re-opened.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, do I understand him to say that we are to have no statement on Government policy with regard to the question of German reparations apart from inter-Allied debts, and particularly as to whether there is a possibility of France applying sanctions before this House assembles again and without the possibility of discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no doubt that questions on this subject will be put to me in the Debate on Thursday, when I shall do my best to answer them to whatever extent I can without endangering the success of the subsequent conferences.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in fixing the date for opening the new Session, bear in mind the great desirability of making a statement to this House at the earliest possible moment?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member means that we should meet earlier, it is obvious that, if any situation arose in which it seemed essential that
the House of Commons should be consulted, we should have to call the House together earlier, but the hon. Member knows that, apart from other questions, it is impossible to get the business for next Session arranged by the officials in the Departments unless there is a reasonable interval.

INFANTS (GUARDIANSHIP).

Mr. BRIANT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to continue the deliberations commenced by the late Government on the subject of equal guardianship of infants, with a view to introducing satisfactory legislation thereon?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by appointing such a committee at the present moment.

DIRECTORS (PUBLIC COMPANIES).

Mr. ALBERT BENNETT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent disclosures, the Government will consider the desirability of strengthening the law as regards the responsibility of directors of public companies?

Major KELLEY: 138.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation next year to diminish the opportunities which the present law allows for the misapplication of funds of public companies by directors of those companies, and also to provide effective penalties for negligence on the part of directors who, by failure to carry out their duties to the shareholders, allow such frauds to go undetected?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE(Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. The question of the responsibility of company directors was considered by a Company Law Amendment Committee which reported in 1906 and did not recommend any alteration of the law such as is suggested. The President of the Board of Trade is not at present satisfied that any amendment is necessary.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave constitutional issues involved and the necessity, in the public interest, of increasing the general interest in, and knowledge of, the proceedings of Parliament, which are no longer reported in the public Press as they formerly were, he will consider the expediency of making the experiment, for one year, of publishing the daily OFFICIAL REPORT at a lower rate so as to test how far the expense might be met by a larger circulation?

Mr. BALDWIN: While I do not share the expectations of hon. Members that a reduction in price will be advantageous to the Exchequer, I am willing to make the experiment and I am giving instructions that the OFFICIAL REPORTS shall be priced at 6d. a copy for next Session, after which the question will be reconsidered in the light of the results obtained.

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA (GREAT BRITAIN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has any present complaint against the Russian Government on the ground of subsidies paid by that Government to persons in this country for the purpose of spreading disaffection; whether any complaint on this subject has been laid during the present year by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government; and what were the circumstances?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Home Secretary to a question by him on the 5th December. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer said that no statement could be made. May I be informed, yes or no, have the Government any complaint about propaganda by the Russian Government in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been referred said that no statement could be made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I call for some answer, Mr. Speaker, to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer was precise and complete.

TREASURY NOTES.

Mr. GWYNNE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the Irish Free State Constitution Act has been passed, he proposes to continue issuing Treasury notes headed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or whether this practice will discontinue?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not proposed to make any change at present.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. C. WILSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state, in regard to the National Debt, the total amount borrowed by the State since the commencement of the debt, the total amount repaid up to last year, and the total added to the debt in respect of the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean war, the South African war, the European war, and other wars; and, if the debt reduction is effected at the same rate as during the 10 years ending 31st March, 1914, what is the approximate date when the pre-War debt and the post-War debt, respectively, will be discharged?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member will find particulars of the National Debt back to 1835 in Command Paper 7994 of 1915 and 1438 of 1922. The approximate additions to the nominal amount of the National Debt were £622 million for the Napoleonic wars; £34 million for the Crimean war; £150 millions for the South African war. At the end of March, 1920, the debt had been increased by £7,170 millions over the pre-War figure. Since then it has been effectively reduced by over £300 millions, though conversions have altered the resulting nominal total. In the 10 years prior to 31st March, 1914, debt was reduced at a rate equivalent to nearly 1 per cent, per annum. A ½ per cent, sinking fund would extinguish the present total debt in about 50 years.

ZINC CONCENTRATES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. COLLISON: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we have sustained a loss through our Australian contracts of zinc concentrates; and, if so, what amount was shown in the trading results of the last financial year?

Viscount WOLMER: I anticipate, in view of the recent considerable improvement in the market price of spelter, that it will be found that no appreciable loss has so far resulted through the operations of the Australian zinc concentrates contract. The accounts of the trading of the last financial year will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Mr. WIGNALL: Has any attempt been made to terminate the contracts, as promised in the Debate last year?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that a promise of that sort was given.

Mr. WIGNALL: It was.

TITHES.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of tithes paid by occupiers of agricultural land for the latest period for which figures are available, and what charge per acre of agricultural land the payment of the tithes involved?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have been asked to reply. Under Section 1 of the Tithe Act, 1891, tithe rent-charge is payable by the owner of the land and not by the occupier as such. The total amount of tithe rent-charge now arising from lands in England and Wales is £3,400,000. Most of this amount is charged on agricultural lands, but it is impossible to state separately the exact amounts payable by rural and urban landowners, respectively. The rate at which different lands in different parishes, or even in the same parish, are charged with tithe rent-charge varies greatly, but the average for the whole country may roughly be estimated at 3s. 6d. per acre.

MOTOR LICENCE DUTY.

Mr. SITCH: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware
that owner-drivers of motor lorries competing with firms owning fleets of lorries are heavily penalised in the payment of licence duty owing to the fact that they are unable to pay the duty yearly and, in paying it quarterly, have to pay £6 a year more; and that firms owning fleets of lorries are able to pay yearly and, in addition, are able to work their lorries night and day for seven days a week, whereas the owner-driver can only work his lorry, at the best of times, eight or nine hours a day; and whether, in connection with the next Budget, he will consider the possibility of altering the incidence of the duty so that owner-drivers will be placed on a more equal footing with competing companies?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply, and would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 5th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, of which I am sending him a copy.

BRITISH CAPITAL (FOREIGN INVESTMENTS).

Mr. SHORT: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the total amount of British capital invested abroad during the year 1921, and for the year 1922 up to date?

Mr. BALDWIN: No official statistics are available. The statistics compiled by the "Economist" show that the new issues of capital in this country for overseas investment amounted to £112,802,000 in 1921, and £126,880,000 in the first eleven months of 1922, but, of course, these figures take no account of the bu5dng and selling of Dominion, Colonial or foreign securities, nor of investments of British capital abroad otherwise than through the medium of issues in the market.

INCOME TAX.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates the reintroduction of the Revenue Bill, 1921, in time for its provisions to be operative for the financial year commencing 6th April, 1923; and whether he proposes, and, if so, when, to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax so far as they affect collectors of taxes?

Mr. BALDWIN: The provisions to which my hon. Friend refers could not be enacted in time to be operative for the ensuing financial year. The proposals affecting collectors demand legislative authority, and cannot suitably be dealt with apart from other reforms in Income Tax administration, for which legislation is also necessary.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this very hardworking and much maligned section of the community suffers from many disabilities at the present moment?

Mr. BALDWIN: We on this bench are also a hard-working and much-maligned section of the community at the present moment.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Ts the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a. small deputation of tax collectors on the subject?

EXCESSPROFITSDUTY (REPAYMENTS).

Mr. NICHOL: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the various total sums paid by the Treasury up to the present as repayments of Excess Profits Duty, coal awards, or similar repayments of moneys originally raised as taxes or duties?

Mr. BALDWIN: The repayments of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) from the inception of the duty down to the 30th ultimo amount to £167,950,000. These figures include repayments on account, of deficiencies, adjustments of overcharges, etc., as well as losses in respect of trading stocks in hand at the end of the final accounting period. Payments to the coal industry under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act and the Coal Mines Emergency Acts, together with the Wages Subvention voted by Parliament, amount to about £41,000,000.

Mr. NICHOL: Does this explain the initiative in many of the industrial stoppages that have taken place?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not quite see the connection.

PETROLEUM (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in what parts of the British Empire, in-eluding mandated and other territories, which, in the case of? dutiable commodities, enjoy Imperial preference, petroleum is produced; what was the output of petroleum in these territories during 1921 and the first six months of 1922; and what proportion of this production was imported into this country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The figures desired by my hon. Friend will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

ST. LUCIA (ANNUAL REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what results there have been from the special steps which were promised by the then Secretary of State, in reply to questions on 6th July, 1921, and 28th February of this year, would be taken in order to bring about a resumption of the publication of the Annual Report of St. Lucia, one of the West India Islands, no Report having been received since that for 1915–16?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A Report has been received for 1921 and is about to be published. The acting administrator stated in forwarding this Report that he regretted that he had been unable to complete it at an earlier date because the statistical figures for 1921 had only recently become available. Steps have been taken with a view to securing that future Reports are furnished as soon as possible, but for reasons of economy I do not propose to call for Reports for the period during and shortly after the War in respect of which none have been prepared.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES COMMISSION).

Captain ELLIOT: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British representative on the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations has recently resigned; whether the new representative will be appointed by the British Government or by the
League of Nations; and when it is expected that the name of the new British representative will be announced?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative, and I have tendered my resignation to the Secretary-General of the League. As to the second, Members of the Permanent Mandates Commission are appointed by the Council of the League of Nations; as to the third, I hope that arrangements may be made shortly to propose a name to the Council of the League after consultation with Dominion Governments.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Captain BERKELEY: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Fiji and any other Crown Colonies have declared their inability to participate in the British Empire Exhibition upon the grounds of their present financial difficulties; and whether His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power, by loan or guarantee or otherwise, to provide the comparatively small sum necessary to enable the great potential economic resources of such Colonies to become more generally known throughout the Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret very much that the Colonies of Fiji, Barbados, Ceylon, Gibraltar and St. Helena and the Protectorates of Somaliland, Nyasaland and the Western Pacific have decided not to participate. The Colony of Trinidad has deferred consideration, in the hope of an improvement in its finances. In some instances the benefits of participation are doubtful, in view of the very limited economic resources of the Colonies or Protectorates concerned, and I do not think it would be justifiable to ask this House to vote moneys to assist the non-participating Colonial Governments to take part, in view of the need for economy at home.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the Government consider doing all in their power to induce these Colonies to participate in the Exhibition? It might be possible to do something?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I certainly most sincerely regret that a Colony of the
importance and resources of Ceylon has so far, regrettably, been unable to participate.

FIJI (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).

Captain BERKELEY: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider measures for the purpose of extending the system of representative government in the Colony of Fiji by giving the elected members of the Legislative Council equality in number with the official members?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The constitution of the Legislative Council of Fiji is at present under consideration by the Secretary of State, and the question of an increase in the number of unofficial members will not be overlooked.

IRAQ (LOCAL LEVIES).

Mr. MILNE: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the raising of local levies in Iraq; from what districts they have principally been recruited; how many British and Arab officers, respectively, are engaged; and in what areas they are principally stationed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My reply is based on the assumption that the hon. Member's question refers to the Iraq levies only and not to the Iraq Army, which is a quite separate force. (1) The Iraq levies number, as was stated in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) on the 30th November, about 4,800. (2) Most of the rank and file were recruited from the northern portion of the mandated territory. (3) There are at present with the levies, 59 British officers out of a total of 78 asked for, 38 British warrant and noncommissioned officers out of an establishment of 45, and 90 Iraqi officers. (4) The levies are used chiefly to garrison the northern districts.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (RUBBER PRODUCTION).

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Ordinance recently passed in the Legislative Council of the Straits Settle-
ments to restrict the production of rubber has been assented to in the usual way; and, if so, when?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A Bill imposing restrictive duties on the export of rubber over and above a certain percentage of estate proprietors' standard production was passed in the Legislative Council on the 30th October and has received the Governor's assent. I am unable at present to state the actual date of the Governor's assent to the Bill, as the official copies of the Ordinance have not yet reached this country.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Why was that Bill not reserved for allowance or disallowance by His Majesty the King, under the letters patent granted to the Governor?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Because I understand the Ordinance has been introduced to give effect to recommendations made by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies.

WESTINDIES (STEAMER COMMUNICATIONS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are contemplated to improve the communication between this country and the West Indies in view of the great benefits that would accrue to these islands from a regular direct service to the Motherland?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad to say that steamer communications between this country and the West Indies have considerably improved lately. There is now a service alternately by Messrs. Elders and Fyffes and the Harrison Line to Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana and Jamaica with sailings every two or three weeks. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company have arranged that their steamers leaving Liverpool on the 25th January and the 22nd February shall call at Jamaica, and that steamers shall call there homeward bound about the 10th and 27th March. These are large and comfortable vessels, and the arrangement affords every facility to people wishing to pay a short visit to the island. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the White Star Line are all despatching tourist steamers from New York to the West Indies. This is in addition to the
ordinary facilities afforded by Messrs. Furness Withy and the Canadian mail steamers. I am afraid that the present time is not opportune for taking steps to secure a service run strictly to a timetable, which would no doubt involve a subsidy.

BIRTH CONTROL (CIRCULAR).

Mr. O'GRADY: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the issue of a circular letter through the post by a person or persons at Castleford, under the heading of the Parisian Medical Agency, advertising in particular appliances for birth control; and, having regard to the fact that such circular letter is accepted by the Post Office as printed matter, and thus transmitted in open envelopes, which, being addressed to the lady of the house in an open envelope, in many cases come under the observation of children, steps will be taken immediately to stop this outrage upon the views of many men and women in these matters, particularly of all those who are members of the Roman Catholic church?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have obtained a copy of the circular to which the hon. Member apparently refers. I have no authority to take any action in the matter.

SENTENCE (MRS. MAUD HIBBERT).

Mr. LEES SMITH: 86.
asked the Home Secretary if, in the case of Mrs. Maud Hibbert, recently sentenced to nine months' hard labour for attempted suicide, after a charge against her of murder made because she had agreed to die with another person had been withdrawn, he has received a petition for the remission of the remainder of the sentence signed by a large number of influential men and women and many eminent authors; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have received such a petition; but no new facts have been disclosed, and I regret that I can find nothing in the petition which would warrant interference with the decision of the Court.

Mr. SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence in his Department of similar modern sentences to this sentence of nine months' imprisonment in a case of attempted suicide; and did this sentence take into account the charge of attempted murder, which was, in fact, withdrawn?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have gone carefully into the question, and have come to the conclusion there is no reason for altering the sentence.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing a Right to Die Bill, as there is no chance of a Right to Work Bill?

IRISH CATTLE.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture what were the terms of the express arrangement with the Canadians referred to by the Attorney-General in last night's Debate, whereby whatever provisions on this side apply to Canadian cattle should apply equally to Irish cattle; also, what was the date of this arrangement? Will the right hon. Gentleman produce to the House the terms of that arrangement?

Sir R. SANDERS: At the first meeting of the Conference with the Canadian Ministers on 14th October last, in reply to a question from the Canadian representatives as to whether, in regard to the six days' detention after landing, all cattle would be treated alike, Sir Arthur Boscawen said, "We treat you exactly the same," and Mr. Winston Churchill added, "There will be no discrimination." The same subject was considered, among others, by a Committee of experts on the 16th October, who reported that the Canadian representatives did not regard the regulation of movement of imported animals as a matter on which they were entitled to express any view, so long as such Regulations applied to all imported cattle.

Sir J. SIMON: Is not there a great difference between saying that the Dominion of Canada desires to be treated in the same way as Ireland, and saying that the Dominion of Canada insists that certain terms shall be put upon Ireland?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is not true that the Dominion of Canada insisted upon any terms being put upon Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Were any representatives of Ireland present at the consultation between the Colonial Secretary, the late Minister of Agriculture, and the Canadian delegates, or at the subsequent discussions upon the subject?

Sir R, SANDERS: No, Sir, there were not. The Colonial Secretary is responsible for Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that the Colonial Secretary was authorised to speak the opinion of Ireland, without showing that he had in any way consulted the opinion of Ireland?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, I do not say that. I mean what I say. The Colonial Secretary is the Minister responsible for Ireland to this House.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does that mean that the Colonial Secretary was authorised, simply because he was Colonial Secretary then responsible for Ireland in this House,

to make an arrangement with regard to the cattle of Ireland without consulting the opinion of Ireland, or any representative of that opinion?

Sir R. SANDERS: No arrangement with regard to the cattle of Ireland was made with the Canadian Government at all.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Oh, yes!

Sir R. SANDERS: Nothing of the sort was done. The arrangement was one which was made for our own benefit with regard to Irish cattle. All the stipulation with regard to Canada was that they should be treated in the same way as Ireland—no better and no worse.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 138.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Alexander, E E. (Leyton, East)
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Gardiner, James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gates, Percy


Apsley, Lord
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Goff, Sir R. Park


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Cope, Major William
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Banks, Mitchell
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Halstead, Major D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Becker, Harry
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, F. C.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Berry, Sir George
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hawke, John Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Blundell, F. N.
Ednam, Viscount
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hinds, John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Elveden, Viscount
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bruton, Sir James
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Houfton, John Plowright


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson


Butcher, Sir John George
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hudson, Capt A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Flanagan, W. H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cautley, Henry Strother
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kurd, Percy A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Frece, Sir Walter de
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Furness, G. J.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Clayton, G. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Lamb, J. Q.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sparkes, H. W.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Law, Rt. Han. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Paget, T. G.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lewis, Thomas A.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lloyd-G reams, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Penny, Frederick George
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lorden, John William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Lougher, L.
Perring, William George
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Phillpson, H. H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Lumley, L. R.
Pielou, D. P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


M'Connell, Thomas E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Tubbs, S. W.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Privett, F. J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Raine, W.
Wallace, Captain E.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, Capt. A S. C. (Warrington)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Remer, J. R.
Waring, Major Walter


Margesson, H. D. R.
Remnant, Sir James
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Mercer, Colonel H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Wells, S. R.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Roberts. Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Whitla, Sir William


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Windsor, Viscount


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Winterton, Earl


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Wise, Frederick


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Murchison, C. K.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nail, Major Joseph
Shakespeare, G. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sinclair, Sir A.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Skelton, A. N.



Nield, Sir Herbert
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.


Barnes, A.
Hancock, John George
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Batey, Joseph
Harbord, Arthur
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Briant, Prank
Hirst, G. H.
Richards, R.


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brotherton, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Ritson, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Rose, Frank H.


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton


Chapple, w. A.
Kenyon, Barnet
Saklatvala, S.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Collison, Levi
Lansbury, George
Shaw, Hon, Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Duncan, c.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
McLaren, Andrew
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Snowden, Philip


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Stephen, Campbell


Falconer, J.
Maxton, James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Foot, Isaac
Middleton, G.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morel, E. D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Mosley, Oswald
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenall, T.
Muir, John W.
Thornton, M.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Warne, G. H.


Groves, T.
Nichol, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.




Weir, L. M.
Wignall, James
Wintringham, Margaret


Welsh, J. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Westwood, J
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Wheatley, J.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)



White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Whiteley, W.
Wilson, ft. J. (Jarrow)
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE8.—(Regulation of movement of imported cattle.)

(1) The provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to imported cattle.

(2) The Minister may by Order alter or modify any of the said provisions if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, and the alterations or modifications are such as in his opinion will not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease which is afforded by the said provisions as enacted in the said Schedule, provided that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
provided that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions.
and to insert instead thereof the words
Anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, on and after six months from the time the Act comes into force, the Minister of Agriculture, upon joint requisition of the Government of the Irish Free State and of the Government of Northern Ireland, may make such an Order as regards the altering and modifying the regulations contained in the Schedule to this Act (including the period of detention) as no may deem advisable.
I have had no indication of the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment, which I put upon the Paper last night, but I hope that the Attorney-General will see his way to accept it. If he does, it will remove a blot on the Bill to which I have several times had to call attention, and it will ease the situation. I do not see that there is any essential difference between the proposal of the Government last night and my Amendment. The only difference is that 1 bring in a joint requisition from the Irish Free State Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. I think that is an advantage in favour of my scheme for meeting the situation over the scheme of the Government. In the first place, it does not call upon the Government to take the initiative, but only to act when a requisition is made by the representatives of all parts of Ireland. This method of mine also has the advantage
that it brings the North and South of Ireland together in common action for the common good of their country, and anything that will do that for the advancement of their common interests is all for the good of Ireland. The effect of the Amendment will be that the Government will have power to make an Order altering, modifying and, if necessary, suspending the various provisions of the Bill which we think will act harshly upon Ireland, and especially the provision with regard to detention at all times and in all seasons, whatever the conditions of Ireland may be.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment differs from that proposed by the Government last night in the respect that it would allow the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations removing restrictions from Irish cattle without doing so with regard to Canadian cattle. But, of course, he will still have the power to refuse to treat Irish cattle differently from Canadian cattle, if he likes, so that there really is not a very great deal of difference between the two proposals. I would like to say a very few words as to the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself on the Government Amendment last night in order to remove some misapprehension. We have no desire in the world to be placed in any better position than Canada in this matter of importing cattle into this country. We look upon the Amendment which the Minister of Agriculture offered to us yesterday as being quite worthless. because we believe that the time will never arrive, or at least is very far distant, when any Minister of Agriculture in this country, or his technical advisers, will allow Canadian cattle to be imported without detention regulations somewhat similar to those imposed by this Bill. If we had thought for one moment that Canadian cattle were likely to be received as freely into this country as our own cattle, we would have accepted that Amendment quite gladly, because it would have met our wishes. But we believe, rightly or wrongly, that no Minister of Agriculture within the next 20 years, at any rate, will be able to come to this House and propose that Canadian cattle shall be allowed to come in without any quarantine or detention regula-
tions, for the simple reason that it is well known that, although Canadian herds are supposed, and probably are, quite free from disease at the present time, there is an immense border frontier between Canada and the United States, and it is quite possible to introduce or smuggle across the border animals which we do not know to be as free from disease as Canadian cattle. I believe, therefore, that no Minister of Agriculture will ever be able to allow those cattle into this country without severe quarantine regulations, and, that being so, it is obvious that if in any modification which he makes with regard to Irish cattle he is bound by Statute, to treat Canadian cattle in the same way, we can never hope that our cattle will be allowed into this country free from all detention. It is for those reasons that we look upon the offer which the right hon. Gentleman made last night as valueless, and our attitude was not the outcome of any desire to be placed in a privileged position as compared with Canada. This Amendment really gives the Minister of Agriculture all the powers that are necessary. By Statute all cattle, Irish and Canadian alike, are prohibited from entering this country without six days' detention. This Amendment gives the Minister power to modify those Regulations in favour of Irish cattle, either by doing away with the six days detention altogether, or reducing it to any extent he likes. I submit that the cattle of this country are quite sufficiently safeguarded by the provisions of this Bill, and that none of those safeguards are seriously weakened by the Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation with regard to one sentence which occurred in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Captain Craig). He stated that it would be possible under this Amendment, on the joint requisition of the Irish Free State Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, for the Minister to make an Order doing away with some of the Regulations, and particularly that of detention as to Irish cattle, thereby implying that there would be differentiation as between Irish and Canadian cattle. I want to know whether that is so, because I read the Amendment quite differently. Under Clause 8, Sub-
section (1), the Schedule, if passed, will apply to all imported cattle, both Canadian and Irish, and, as I read the Amendment, there is only power given to alter the Regulations. That is a very important matter. I have no faith whatever in the efficacy of this period of detention for stopping disease. If it had been applied to Canadian cattle coming in and there had been detention at the port, it might have had some effect. I am very sorry indeed that Irish cattle are placed in the position in which they are placed, but I very much object to having any Regulations that have been made lessened with regard to Canadian cattle.

Major PAGET: I feel that we should appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to resist this Amendment. When we see the North and South of Ireland united, it makes us rather suspicious that it is simply done for the purpose of raiding the British Exchequer. The right hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Captain Craig), in his speech, gave two very strong reasons why Canadian and Irish cattle should be treated in the same manner. He stated that there-was a large frontier between America and Canada. There is also a long frontier between the North' of Ireland and the Irish Free State. More over, it must nor be forgotten that probably there will be a very close con nection, and possibly trade agreements, between the Irish Free State and. the United States, and, if this Amendment be accepted, it will be very difficult for us to keep out American cattle which may be imported through the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland. For these reasons, I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.

The MINISTER of AGRICUITURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I. do not wish, to argue about the exact legal interpretation of this Amendment, but its intention, evidently, from the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder, is to discriminate between Irish and Canadian cattle coming into England. I have stated more than once the position which the Government have taken up with regard to that question. The two Ministers of the late Government gave an undertaking to the representatives of Canada that the treatment of Canadian cattle should be the same as Irish cattle, and, if the Government by any alteration in the
provisions of the Schedule were to make that treatment different, they would be guilty of a breach of faith with the Canadian Government. That being so, it is clear that I cannot accept the Amendment, even if only for that reason. But there are other and as strong reasons. The Amendment would make the Schedule altogether nugatory. What is the good of putting into an Act of Parliament things which you can do by order if at the same time you say that you may, by Order, reverse everything that is in the Act? The object of placing in an Act of Parliament that which is done by Order is to make it more difficult for the Minister weakly to give way, and to put in this provision would be to stultify the Act altogether. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Did not the Amendment which the Government proposed give power to the Government to suspend the operation of the Regulations?

Sir R. SANDERS: There was a very important provision in my Amendment with regard to the consent of both Houses, which is not in this Amendment.

Mr. BARNES: I want to oppose this Amendment, because I regard it simply as another attempt to get round the decision which this House gave yesterday in a very emphatic way. Not only that, but, in my opinion, it would open the door to undue pressure of vested and trade interests upon the Minister of Agriculture. It has been very apparent in discussions on this Bill that the whole principle of importation of Canadian cattle, and the benefit it is likely to confer on the consumers of this country, has slipped more and more into the background, and that the interests of breeders and cattle dealers of this country versus the interests of cattle dealers and breeders of Ireland and Canada have emerged stronger and stronger as the discussions haye proceeded. In the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle, which is very strongly demanded by the people of this country, I regret that the Minister of Agriculture has taken this opportunity of all times to interfere with practices which have existed between this country and Ireland in the past. The contradiction that has been apparent by the statements of the Minister of Agriculture, by the statements of the Attorney-General,
and by the statements of the hon. and gallant Member, who, I believe, speaks for Ulster Members, I do feel demands a certain amount of sympathy from this side of the House. If the Minister of Agriculture intended to take this opportunity of placing restrictions upon the importation of Irish cattle, it was very desirable that good feeling should have been maintained, first of all by Irish opinion on this matter being invited as evidence before the Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Diseases; and, secondly, that Irish opinion should have been consulted by the British Government before they gave a more or less indistinct, but nevertheless binding, pledge to the Canadian Government.
We on these benches now are confronted with the difficulty that the Government have made up their mind that the restrictions now to be imposed upon the importation of Canadian cattle must also be imposed upon the importation of Irish cattle. Personally, I do not feel that it is a matter of very grave moment. I do not feel, from a practical point of view, that it will hamper unduly the importation of Irish cattle in this country. I do not believe that these restrictions will in any way interfere with the marketing of Irish cattle in this country. If I did feel that, then the benefits of the importation of Canadian cattle would have to be weighed to see how far the interests of the consumers of this country would be affected by interference with the importation of Irish cattle, but I look upon these restrictions which the Minister of Agriculture is imposing upon Irish cattle as restrictions more of an irritating description, calculated to have, and, I believe, will have, the effect of irritating Irish opinion. On the other hand, now that the question of the importation of Canadian cattle is before this House, it raises once more in the minds of the British public this position. The opponents of the importation of Canadian cattle have always argued, and have held their position hitherto on the plea and the contention, that the importation of Canadian cattle is likely to increase the possibilities of disease in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment, but on the Third Reading of the Bill. This relates merely to the altering of the Regulations after the cattle have been brought in.

Mr. BARNES: I stand corrected. I understood the whole intention of this Amendment was to demonstrate to the Minister of Agriculture that these restrictions were not necessary as far as Irish cattle were concerned, and the restrictions are obviously being imposed for the purpose of limiting the possibility of spreading disease in this country. If I am wrong, I will not proceed further on those lines, but, certainly, I under stool that that was the purpose of the Amendment. I revert to my original argument, namely, that if this Amendment be passed by this House, it is a direct inducement to the cattle trade interests of Ireland to organise their political power to impress both the Irish Free State Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, and to carry it further to the Minister of Agriculture in this country, and the Minister himself has admitted in the Committee stage of this Bill, and again to-day, that, as far as he is concerned, he does not wish to be subjected to this political pressure brought about by trade interests being organised in this Parliament and other Parliaments. On many occasions already we have had evidence of this description. Therefore, I do feel that if the present Minister of Agriculture is in that fearsome frame of mind, if one may use the term, it is very desirable that this House should reject this Amendment, and any similar Amendment, on these lines. I do not fear that the Irish cattle trade will be interfered with by these restrictions, and, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask a question to clear up this matter, if possible? So far as I read Clause 8, it leaves entirely to the discretion of our own Minister the alteration of Regulations. What I understand the Amendment to mean is that the Irish Free State or the Northern Parliament may make suggestions to our Minister for the alteration of Regulations and they shall receive attention. That is all I read into the Amendment, and, if that be so, it is, in my opinion, a fair proposition to make to the House.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short title, interpretation and commencement.)

(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

2658
The expression "the Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the expression "the Ministry" shall he construed accordingly:
The expression "veterinary inspector" means a person appointed by the Minister to be a veterinary inspector for the purposes of the principal Act:
The expression "British Dominion" means any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Ireland.

Sir R. SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
The expression 'British Dominion' means any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Ireland.
This is consequential on the deletion of Clauses 4 and 11.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Condition to be complied with in the case of cattle in authorised markets,

2.—(1) Imported cattle which have been moved to an authorised market shall at all times while therein be kept separate from all animals other than imported cattle, and shall not, if part only of a market is authorised for the purposes of this Schedule, be permitted, while any such other animals are in the market, to enter any part of the market other than the authorised part.

(2) No animals other than imported cattle shall be permitted to enter an authorised market.

Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 2 (2), to insert the words "except with the permission of the local authority."
I explained in Committee last night what the object of this Amendment was. It is simply this: When a market is authorised for the purpose of accommodating imported cattle — and the Schedule as it stands provides that it shall not be used for any other purpose-—there is no limit of time, and it may beheld that, if once a market is used for that purpose, it shall remain for all time, or, at any rate, during the currency of the licence, impossible to use it again for other cattle. I cannot imagine that that was really the intention, and it is represented to me by people who are engaged in the practical handling of cattle in these markets, that if it were read as I have
suggested, it would be a very serious encumbrance and inconvenience, without serving any useful purpose at all. The Attorney - General promised that the Minister would consider it overnight, and that the result would be announced today. I am inclined to think that the result he is prepared to give the House will go a long way to meet the point.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir R. SANDERS: As, I think, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment considered it possible, there has been some misunderstanding. about the expression "authorised market." A market, or part of a market, will only be treated as an authorised market while it is being so used. On other days it may be used for animals which are not imported animals, but while it is being used for imported animals, there must, under paragraph 1 of Regulation 2, be kept separate from other animals. Therefore, other animals must not be moved into the part used for imported cattle, whether with the authority of the local authority or not. The separation of imported cattle from other animals while the market is in progress is, we all admit, eminently necessary from the administrative point of view. I hope, after the explanation I have given, the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. FALCONER: That being the view taken by the Minister, no doubt on eminent legal advice, with regard to this provision in the Schedule, it is undoubtedly unnecessary that the words I am suggesting should be inserted. I presume the Minister, in carrying out these provisions, will act in accordance with the statement which he has just given as to the meaning of the Schedule. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should like the attention of the House for a little while, because I feel so strongly both the inequity and inadvisability of this Measure, that I do not desire the Third Reading to go through without a final protest. I put aquestion to the right
hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture to-day, and he has been kind enough to supply me with a copy of the answer, which I will read to the House. My question was:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture what were the terms of the express arrangement with the Canadians referred to by the Attorney-General in last night's Debate whereby whatever provision on this side apply to Canadian cattle should apply equally to Irish cattle; also what was the date of this arrangement, Will the right hon. Gentleman produce to the House the terms of that arrangement?
The reply was:
Sir R. SANDERS: At the first meeting of the Conference with the Canadian Ministers on 14th October last, in reply to a question from the Canadian representatives as to whether in regard to the six days' detention after landing all cattle would be treated alike, Sir Arthur Boscawen said: 'We treat you exactly the same,' and Mr. Winston Churchill aded, 'There will be no discrimination.' The same subject was considered amongst others by a Committee of experts on the 16th October, who reported that the Canadian representatives did not regard the regulation of movement of imported animals as a matter on which they were entitled to express any view, so long as such Regulations applied to all imported cattle.
The first observation that I make on this, to me, extraordinary answer is this, that apparently the Gentlemen authorised to decide this question, both for England and Ireland, were Sir Arthur Boscawen and Mr. Winston Churchill. I would ask the House, who authorised these gentlemen to speak for Ireland? I am reminded in this connection of the fact that these Olympian deities of the Treasury Bench are temporarily in the dust by the verdict of their countrymen. But their countrymen had the opportunity of deciding upon their policy, and Ireland has not had the opportunity of even expressing an opinion upon it. They decided the question behind the back of Ireland. Ireland was left with a mere protest against their action, with less voice in the matter than the electors of the one small town of Taunton and the one great city of Dundee. Here you have this position brought about by these two gentlemen, neither of whom, with all due respect, are wanting in self-confidence, in the might of their temporary and passing position, making a decree in respect to the cattle trade of Ireland that will have the far-reaching effects which have been stated.
I must also take objection to the gross misrepresentation as to the position, not merely of Canada towards Ireland, but of Ireland towards Canada. The right hon. Gentleman said, and said correctly, that we have no quarrel with Canada or with Canadian cattle. In fact, so strongly do I sympathise, as I have always sympathised, not entirely with Canada alone, but in the necessity of supplying the cheapest beef for the masses of our people of this country that at some political risk I did not vote against the Resolution passed in the last Parliament against the importation of cattle. I was pressed, I may say, by all the interests of my own country. I was pressed still more by my sympathy with my own country and countrymen. I was pressed still more strongly to vote against the Eesolution for the importation of Canadian cattle. But as a Free Trader I could not but regard the supply of cheap food to the people as in the very best interests of the nation and the duty of the Government to attend to, and I declined to vote. I think that was as far as I could go to show what I felt on the subject and perhaps shows the risk I ran in declaring that I was as much as anyone in favour of the importation of Canadian cattle. Therefore I decline indignantly to be gibbeted as an enemy either of Canada or of the importation of Canadian cattle. My attitude was quite different. It was this—I do not want to use epigrams, because the subject is too serious for them—I say that in freeing Canada you have no right to manacle Ireland. That is the whole position. Also I contest entirely the position that exactly the same kind of administration can under all circumstances, times, and seasons be applied to Canada and to Ireland.
Actually the situation between the two countries is not the same antithetical position as between the States and Canada. Three thousand miles separate Canada from England; it is a six days' journey. Three hours, sometimes two, is the length of the journey from Ireland to England. As a matter of fact, in this matter Ireland and England can be regarded as one, because of their contiguity. My hon. Friend opposite, replying to an argument put forward that there is a border between the United States and Canada of 3,000 miles, points out that there is also a border between the six
Northern Counties of Ireland and the Free State. To put that forward is putting forward a grotesque example. It shows a lack of all sense of proportion in comparing a frontier of 3,000 miles between the United States and Canada with a few miles of frontier between Northern and Southern Ireland.

Major PAGET: It is over these frontiers that the troubles arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gunmen!" and "They were not kept out!"] How will cattle be kept out?

Mr. O'CONNOR: We trust that more intelligent relations will ensue between the North and South.

Major PAGET: I hope so.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope so too, but that is not the point here. Does anybody suppose that because the six counties are in the territorial position they are that the Government, present or future, of the South will enter into a tariff warfare irrespective of the position in the North? No, that is not the real issue. We are not dealing with Canada alone. Canada has no warmer friend in the world or in her own Dominions than I. I count her the greatest, the brightest jewel in the Imperial Crown. She has the greatest possibilities and has one of the best Governments in the world. But her neighbour is the United States with this 3,000 miles of frontier. Does anyone say there is not a greater chance of disease being imported from the United States into Canada over these 3,000 miles of frontier than there is disease being taken from Ireland which is surrounded by the sea 1 Therefore, conditions arise that make it impossible to deal with Canada in exactly the same way as Ireland. That is what we are insisting upon. Canada herself does not want to maintain a position which is unfair to Ireland. In the first place there is the greatest sympathy for Ireland in Canada. There are a great many Irish people there. Every Canadian I have met has indignantly repudiated the idea that they wanted to interfere with the cattle trade of Ireland. I therefore am entitled to say that the prohibition of this iron Bill, the insistence that under all conditions there shall be exactly the same treatment of the cattle trade in Ireland and in Canada, is against geographical and economic facts. There might, for instance, be a great outbreak of disease in Canada while Ireland might
be perfectly healthy. Yet if the right hon. Gentleman were compelled to take measures against Canada, would he feel himself compelled to take the same measures against Ireland which was free from disease?
This brings me to the point which I think is the weakness and absurdity of this whole Bill. What are the grounds of this Bill? Not even my right hon. Friend who represents so sternly, and I am afraid I must say sometimes so selfishly, the agricultural interests of England in this House—did he say that Ireland was a country especially cursed with disease On the contrary, as everyone knows, and as statistics prove, Ireland has one of the cleanest bills of health of any country in the world, better than America, better than Canada, better than England—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]— from the cattle point of view. I do not say there is a great deal of disease in Canada, but I say there is even less disease in Ireland than in Canada. What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech says it is not Irish cattle that are diseased. They come to this country beautiful and clean. They do not come to this country diseased, and therefore you must be protected. From whom? From clean Ireland, so far as disease is concerned. You must be protected from what—dirty England?
Everybody who spoke from the English side on this question has missed two points, the magnitude and importance of the Irish cattle trade. The staple industry of Ireland, its whole economic position and existence depend upon the cattle trade. I have figures hero, but I will not weary the House by quoting them. As a matter of fact England, so far as her meat supply is concerned, is more dependent upon Ireland than on the rest of the world. In face of that, not as a definite measure dealing with a definite policy, this question of the Irish cattle trade is brought in as a side wind and an afterthought. This whole question of the cattle trade is mixed up with the question of this Bill, which does not, in essence, deal with anything but with the Regulations of the importation of Canadian cattle. I do not like to dwell upon the political consequences of the. action of the Government, because if I dwelt too much on these consequences it might not be very
helpful. But nobody can deny, who has defended this Bill—he cannot but admit— that you must establish some sore position between the united people of Ireland and England. In conclusion, I would again protest against the action of the Government as being against everything, in relation to the improvement of those relations, that I have ever said or done during my time in this House.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: During the discussion on Clause 4 an hon. Member on the back bench opposite inquired whether any representation had been made from any of our Overseas Dominions in regard to this Bill, and whether any assurance had been given that similar conditions would appertain to all our various Dominions. At that time the Minister of Agriculture promised to make certain inquiries, and it was suggested by one hon. Member that, if it was found on inquiry that such assurances had been given, then this Clause would be reinstated. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any inquiries in this respect. We were told that these conditions applied to each and every one of the Dominions, but the House has since carried an Amendment which amplifies the term "British Dominions" and makes it include all the possessions of His Majesty, including Crown Colonies and India as well.
It is a very serious matter if those assurances have been given, and copies of this Bill transmitted to the Dominions, that this House should afterwards delete that Clause. I consider that is a gross breach of faith, and hon. Members who supported the Clause last night are justified in saying that the Minister should reinstate this Clause. We were told that it was not a question of practical politics to bring cattle from Australia or New Zealand to this country, but even in that case, including the Dominions in this Measure would not have done any harm. I think this Bill has been clumsily drafted. It refers to cattle and animals. I would like to know if that means bloodstock horses are to be kept out of this country. You have had many examples of what Australian blood-stock was, and I want to know if stock of that kind can be kept out under this Bill.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor)
objected to the inclusion of Ireland in this Bill, and I am objecting on behalf of Australia to the exclusion of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other places. I understand that an undertaking was given bo Mr. Hughes at the time of the Conference that the same conditions would obtain, and I have been informed that General Smuts in the Legislature of South Africa made a statement to a similar effect. I think it is an extraordinary position, that because a few hon. Members have raised this point the Government did not stand to their guns. Personally I was very disappointed, and 1 did not vote for the deletion of the Clause. It is a rather remarkable thing that whilst we are endeavouring here to introduce legislation which will have the effect of keeping Australian stock out of this country, the Australian Government have just put into effect the Bounty Bill, which provides a bounty of 10s. per head for every head of cattle shipped to this country.
A good deal has been said about the farmer and the producer, but I think only one hon. Member has referred to the consumer. You want cheap meat in this country. In Australia you can get the best of cattle at about £2 or £3 per head, but when improvements have been made in transport. I am assured by practical men, that it will be possible to bring cattle over to this country from Australia at a reasonable rate. Under these circumstances I do not think I need say anything more except to appeal to the good sense of this House, and in view of the explanation I have given, I hope that the Government will consent to reinstate this Clause, and I am sure if the Minister of Agriculture decides to do so he will have the support of the majority of the Members of this House.

Mr. LAMBERT: I would like, very briefly, to express my disapproval of the Measure we are now considering. The speech we have just heard only illustrates what a bog the Government get into when they attempt to interfere with the good legislation they have passed years ago, because this is one of the samples of good Conservative legislation and now this Government have begun to repeal it. I am sorry for the Minister of Agriculture because he has got a legacy of this kind from the late Government, Lord Ernie and Lord Long. It is no good anyone
saying in the future after this Bill has passed, that the safeguards for the prevention of disease coming into this country will be as effective as they were in the past. I know that the cattle have to be slaughtered and therefore there is not the same danger of spreading disease, but in future there will be that danger unless the regulations are carried out much better than any Government Department can be expected to carry out anything.
I have been twitted, being a Free Trader, with being a Protectionist because I am afraid of preventing disease. I would like to point out that I am not a Free Trader in cattle disease. No one has more strongly stood up against the doctrine that farmers can ever expect any protection from the point of view of protecting themselves against competition in the staple articles of their produce. The consumers of food number 20 to I when compared with the producers, and therefore contend that 20 people ought not to be taxed for the benefit of one person. Some of us in this House have had real experience of the very severe agricultural crisis with which we are now faced, and the farmer to-day is suffering most severely from an unprecedented drop in prices.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Prices have not dropped to the consumer.

Mr. LAMBERT: I should like to argue that point. It is one of the grave difficulties which agriculturists have to contend with, that the price paid for produce to the producer is so much less than the price paid by the. consumer. I could argue that point here and I have argued it in my constituency, and I believe that through rates and taxes, increased railway rates, coal bills and other expenses, the consumer pays 2d. per loaf in indirect taxation. That, however, is not germane to my argument at this moment. We have been told that this Bill will not affect the price of meat, and I do not think it will. I believe this Measure was engineered by an agitation in the early part of the year and-1 do not believe it will affect the price of meat.
I also doubt whether many more Canadian cattle will be brought over here as a result of this Measure. We have had Commission after Commission on this subject. This Measure is firmly founded on the Report of the Commission on the
Importation of Store Cattle, but it is a rather remarkable fact that on that Commission there was not a single agricultural representative. They were all lawyers, accountants, and all sorts of other professions, but there was not a single agricultural representative. I very much regret that on another Commission there are to be three economists to inquire into agricultural subjects, and you will have these three people squatting on a manure heap cogitating as to how agriculture is to be made profitable.
I know that we have to accept this Measure which has been read a Second time by an overwhelming majority. Whenever we have brought an Amendment forward, overwhelming majorities have crushed us, and, therefore, we have to accept this Bill. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend could not accept my Amendment last night, because it would have afforded something like equality of treatment to British and Canadian cattle. It may be argued that it was a slur on their cattle that they should not be admitted into this country as live cattle for stock purposes. I think it is a slur on British cattle that they cannot be admitted into Canada, and I am sorry that the Ministry of Agriculture did not secure that. Nevertheless, we have to accept this Bill because an overwhelming majority of the House has declared itself in favour of it, and although I have to bow to the majority, I still maintain my objections to this Measure.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We have listened to a very able and eloquent speech from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor). Those of us who are new Members know sufficient about the hon. Member's connection with Irish matters during the last four or five decades to induce us to weigh very carefully any propositions which he puts before this House with regard to Irish affairs. With reference to the matter now before the House, I cannot help thinking, although a young Member of Parliament, that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division has missed the real point in regard to the restrictions which it is proposed to place upon Irish cattle.
5.0 P.M.
I think the hon. Member certainly has made a strong point against the Government in his assertion that the
first deliberations on this subject took place without any representative of Ireland being consulted at the conference. It seems to me an amazing thing that a Bill which will have a very far-reaching influence upon the future of the livestock industry in this country, should be considered at a conference without Ireland having an opportunity of having something to say concerning the actual administrative proposals which are incorporated in this Measure. On that point I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member for the Scotland division and the hon. Members who represent the Ulster divisions in this House. It does not follow, however, that because they were not given an opportunity to state their case and express their opinions at the Conference that we can now accept their plea, on the basic principle of it, to the effect that they are entitled to preferential treatment in regard to the necessary precautions to be taken against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in regard to cattle imported from other Dominions of the British Empire. I observed the hon. Gentleman said that when the matter was before the House in July last he had such a strong feeling with regard to the general position of consumers in this matter that he did not vote for the embargo to be retained. I am quite sure he was right when he indicated that strong pressure was brought to bear upon him from Irish sources to vote for the retention of the embargo, but Liverpool had a very strong interest indeed in favour of the embargo being removed. I have been on deputation after deputation to successive Ministers of Agriculture, on behalf of consumers and local authorities in recent years, in regard to the removal of the embargo, and at these, Liverpool and Birkenhead have been represented again and again, and have claimed unity especially with regard to the desire of the inhabitants for the removal of the embargo. My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulties which might arise because of the length of frontier between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, and to what might happen in the case of an outbreak of disease in Canada, Ireland retaining a clean bill of health, if these restrictions Were kept on. I think what he said cast rather a reflection, not so much on
Canadian cattle perhaps, as on the efficiency of the administration which has always been maintained by the Canadian Government to ensure a clean bill of health in that Dominion. If there were anything in the argument put up with regard to the danger arising from length of the frontier, surely there would have been some evidence of weakness in the system during the last 30 years. But, as was admitted by an hon. Member yesterday, they have had a wonderful bill of health in Canada for the last 30 years— a bill of health which compares most favourably with the Irish bill of health. It was amazing to hear the hon. Member for the Scotland Division claiming in the House to-day that the Irish cattle, in the matter of health, were superior to Canadian cattle. There is not a tittle of evidence to bear out that statement.
There is another point I would like to mention. It has been said that the period of six days' detention which is laid down in this Bill—only for animals which are not sold—will cause a lot of inconvenience. Even if there is, at the outset, some little difficulty with regard to holding up the cattle for six days, after the first week's working there would be no such difficulty. We have heard a great deal about the trouble experienced by unemployed workmen in obtaining their benefits at the Employment Exchanges owing to the choking of machinery caused by gaps. That we have been informed always gradually rights itself, and after the first few days things go on smoothly. The same argument can be applied with regard to interference with the Irish cattle trade by the detention laid down under this Bill, and I do not think one can too strongly emphasise the point made, both on the Second Reading and in Committee, with regard to the alternative unless these wise, precautionary methods are now adopted. I was very glad to hear an hon. Member dwell on the consumers' position in this Debate. Some of us are Co-operative members, and we say it is in the true interest of the consumers, both as regards health and prices, that these precautions should be taken. Last year we incurred an expenditure of £1,000,000 in order to stamp out an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and it has been pointed out that that was not the whole of the expenditure. An hon. Gentleman asked just now whether we
had a true appreciation of the present agricultural depression. I would remind him that the Co-operative Societies in this country are farming nearly 100,000 acres of land—

Sir F. BANBURY: And losing money thereby!

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, that may be so, but at any rate we know something about the matter. We know what we are talking about. We understand these subjects from beginning to end, from the first purchase of raw material and production to the distribution of the goods to the public. The £1,000,000 to which I have referred comes, in the first place, out of the taxpayers' pockets, but inevitably it is a charge on the consumer. We lost hundreds of pounds on many of our farms during the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease because we were unable to obtain the full value of the animals that were slaughtered, and where they were isolated we also were considerable losers. The loss sustained by the society in this respect naturally became a charge on the consumer, but when we are asked to consider what will be the cost to the consumer of this detention, I say it cannot compare with the ultimate charge to the consumer of stamping out a wide-spread epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease.
I want also to say with regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), with regard to free trade in disease, that such a suggestion—and I say this with great respect—comes very ill from a representative of British agriculture. The Canadian cattle show a bill of health which is infinitely superior to the bill of health of cattle in this country. There are many of us who are not satisfied that the Government or the agricultural community have ever taken effective steps to make our cattle as healthy as they ought to be. Let me remind hon. Members of the attitude of many Members of the present Government during the last 12 months. They had one of the finest opportunities they could possibly have had of dealing effectively with disease in British herds by putting into operation the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915. The operation of that Act was suspended on the ground of the cost to the taxpayer. The Act included the necessary provisions for making a real attempt to rid our own cattle of disease,
but it was calmly put on one side on the ground that we could not spend money on inspection and on preventive measures. The right hon. Member for South Molton expressed an opinion that this Bill could never have any effect on the price of meat. We have had various cases put forward by those who are opposed to the removal of the embargo. They tell us on one hand that in any case Canada will only be able to send a limited supply of cattle, and it cannot, therefore, produce any great decrease in prices. On the other hand, they have persistently opposed the removal of the embargo, not merely on the ground of disease, but in order to restrict the importation of cattle into this country and to enhance the price of British cattle. One has never known which horse they are going to ride in this connection.
I cannot understand my right hon. Friend's reference to the composition of the Royal Commission. He said that on this Royal Commission, which brought in the report upon which the present Bill is based, not only the agricultural community, but consumers' organisations desired to be represented. That is true. I asked that the Co-operative movement of the United Kingdom should be represented at the same time as the agricultural community, but the answer I got was that the composition of the Commission must be strictly judicial in character. The whole proceedings were strictly judicial. The Commission was presided over by one of the most eminent judges of this country. The agricultural community had every opportunity of putting forward evidence, and they had the assistance of eminent counsel in so doing. The evidence was weighed up by a strictly judicial tribunal, whose report is the basis of the Bill we are considering to-day. The only other point I want to refer to is the question of reciprocity. Surely it is a strange thing for us to hear the doctrine of reciprocity put forward by the right hon. Member for South Molton—almost as strange as hearing him express very grave regret at a Conservative Government bringing in a Bill to interfere with very good Conservative legislation. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has not transferred his allegiance and affection to the Government benches opposite.

Mr. LAMBERT: I am opposing them to-day.

Mr. ALEXANDER: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman was advocating one of their fundamental principles. On the Second Reading, on the Committee stage, and on the Report stage, the opponents of the removal of the embargo have been defeated again and again in the Division Lobby. They now have no case left at all. At least the consumers of this country are going to get something like justice under this Measure. It was amazing to some of us that the Minister of Agriculture so suddenly gave way to pressure last night and agreed to omit Clause 4 from this Bill. The cause of that action has been already very ably stated by an hon. Member below the Gangway, but I want to repeat what I said last night, that the opponents of the removal of the embargo were warning the Government, all the time during the controversy last July, that if it gave way on the question and thus offered a fair measure of justice to Canada, all the other Dominions would demand the same measure of justice. Yet when the Government take them at their word the same hon. Members are not satisfied, although they used that argument in the earlier stages of the controversy on this question in order to prevent justice being done to Canada. I suggest to the Minister that it would not be a sign of weakness, but of great strength, and even, shall I say, of statesmanship of high Imperial value, if he would reconsider the point now, and, by putting that Clause back in the Bill while the Bill is before the other House, do justice to the Dominions, to whom the Government gave a specific pledge. There is another point that I want to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that he will make a note of it and have an Amendment moved in another place. I refer now to Clause 7 of the amended Bill. That Clause at present reads:
Before any Order is made under the preceding provisions of this Act a draft of the Order shall … be laid before each House of Parliament"—
and so on. It seems to me that it would defeat the real object of a saving Clause of this character, which reserves to this House the right of raising questions upon Orders made by the Minister under a Measure like this, if that saving Clause is only going to refer to Orders made under preceding Clauses, There is power, under this Bill, to make other
Orders under later Clauses, and those who believe that there never should be government by Regulation or by Government Department, but that government should always be finally in the hands of this House and subject to its approval and direction, consider that Bills should not provide that only a section of the Orders made under them shall be laid before the House, but that all Orders made by a Minister for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of a particular Bill should be tabled before this House, and the statutory period given during which objections can be raised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the advisability of deleting the word "preceding," and will concede that Amendment to us when the Bill is being considered in another place.
Finally, may I say that some of us who have been fighting on this question week in and week out, year in and year out, feel that we have at last come to something like a satisfactory solution of the difficulty? If there is one thing that we desire, it is that there should not be any political controversy with Ireland over the matter which has been raised in this House yesterday and to-day. I cannot too strongly emphasise that in this matter the Canadian Government cannot be charged, as they have been both yesterday and to-day, with interfering with domestic legislation in this country. The Canadian Government—and I have this from the most; authentic source—never did ask that a restriction should be placed upon Irish cattle. All that they asked, and they have been asking it for nearly 30 years, was that, when cattle from Canada were admitted once more into this country, they should be admitted on the same grounds and with no other restrictions than were placed upon Irish cattle, or upon any other cattle imported into this country. Surely that is no disability to Ireland. The putting into the Bill of the precautions at present laid down simply arises out of the Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety man) who has already made such an able statement on the necessity for taking proper precautions for dealing with the carrying of foot-and-mouth disease. I want to suggest that, if there is freedom from disease—a clean bill of health—in this country and Ireland, then the detention period of six days shall be removed
by Order; but that, if it is removed, it shall be removed, not merely from Irish cattle—and this is where our Irish Friends have been wrong in these Debates, both yesterday and to-day; they would not go half way and accept the Amendment offered to them by the Government—but that, when that period is removed, it shall be removed simultaneously from Canadian cattle as well as Irish.

Mr. GARDINER: Those of us who have been supporting the Government in this Measure have been doing so in the belief that it is in the best interests, not only of agriculture in this country, but of the country generally. The question of safety has entered very largely into the minds of a good many hon. Members, and proposals have been made rigorously to exclude from this country animals that have certain diseases. With every desire in this direction, I am in hearty sympathy and would support any Measure taken by the Government in another Bill to deal with the question of tuberculosis and other diseases that are prevalent in our own herds at home. We want to have the children and the people of the country generally protected from tuberculosis as far as it is possible to do so by legislation and by carrying out proposals that would be helpful in that direction. As regards the six days' detention, the only thing that I would suggest is that the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was really, after all, a part of the aftermath of war, and we are all hopeful that foot-and-mouth disease, and any other of those dire diseases that afflict the animal world, will not revisit us for a long time. If we get back to normal times—I do not know how long or how soon that may be—I have no doubt that one of the first things the Minister of Agriculture will be pressed to do will be to obliterate the six days' detention that is referred to in this Bill. If it is possible, in the judgment of those advising the Ministry, to say that this six days' detention is not necessary for the prevention of disease, the sooner it is deleted the better for both importer and exporter.
A good many of the objections that are being made to the Bill are simply a case of turning molehills into mountains. The arguments that have been used sometimes about no cattle coming from Canada, and then, in the same breath, that so many cattle would come from Canada that
breeding would practically stop in this country, will not, I think, prevail, and will not stand examination by those who know this trade intimately. The Government has shown itself, exceedingly anxious to deal with the question of tuberculosis in different breeds. It will be remembered that the testing station at Pirbright was established at very considerable cost, but I have not heard of anything being done at Pirbright for a very long time. I am quite sure that the establishment of a station in the South of England, where, and where only, all cattle, whether from Scotland or not, should be tested, was wrong; but what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) desires, namely, the same treatment from Canada that we give to Canada, and vice versâ, in the case of breeding animals, is absolutely right. If I were finding serious fault with this Bill, it would be with Clause 2, which deals with breeding animals. The arguments used yesterday did not distinguish between breeding animals and store animals. This Clause deals with breeding animals, and, if I understand it correctly, the testing in the case of breeding animals is to be done in Canada. The tuberculin test is to be applied in Canada within 30 days of shipment. I should like to point out that that does not apply in any other country, so far as I know. The test is not made by the exporters, but by the importers. A good many people do not understand that, if the tuberculin test is applied to an animal and it is tested again within a week, it will never react, no matter how badly it may have gone down on the first occasion. It is necessary that the animal should be detained for 30 days, in order to ensure that it has not been faked before being tested. That ought to be done on this side. If breeders in Great Britain export pure-bred stock to the Argentine, although that stock may have an irreproachable tuberculin chart, the animals are always detained in quarantine for 30 days and then tested for tuberculosis; and very often a number of them go down. If they do not stand the test on the other side, they are immediately slaughtered. We have no protection on this side when we take breeding animals from Canada that have been tested in Canada and on a second test in this country are found to fail. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to
the Minister that he should reconsider the position in regard to Clause 2, and, if necessary, in another place, have the safeguards inserted that are applied by other countries which receive our purebred stock, and make them the same as those other countries consider to be necessary. With the exception of Clause 2, I have great pleasure of supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to say only a very few words on the Third reading, because I think every point of interest in the Bill has been pretty well discussed in its earlier stages. The Minister has had rather a difficult task in dealing with a complex Bill. It is rather unfortunate that, in this Bill, the question of the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle has been mixed up with the question of restrictions against disease. The two things are really entirely separate, and it would have avoided great confusion, and saved some of the time of the House, if the two had been dealt with separately. I imagine that a Bill will probably be introduced to deal with some of the recommendations of the Committee for reducing the risk of foot-and-mouth disease, and this question of restrictions could have been dealt with then. If we had confined ourselves to the question of the removal of the embargo, the matter would have been comparatively simple. I need not repeat that the agricultural industry in this country generally, with certain exceptions, does look upon it with some alarm, particularly because it affects agriculture in its tenderest point, namely, the stock-raising industry. The stock-raising industry in agriculture is now about the only little bit of the structure which may be said to be floating at all; nearly everything else is submerged. I noticed that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) mentioned that he had had great experience of farming, and was concerned in the very large agricultural operations of a co-operative society; and he went on to say that those operations were carried right through from production to consumption. I congratulate him on that being so. It certainly gives him a very wide range of knowledge, and it also gives a very wide range over which profits may be secured, so that some of the profits which can be obtained in the later stages of that process can be used
to defray the losses which, as the hon. Member admits, have, been incurred on the farming. The unfortunate agriculturist, however, has to incur the losses without having the advantage of the further stages which provide the profit by which those losses may be covered.

Mr. ALEXANDER: You should recommend our co-operative principles to the farming community.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that that follows. There is, as a matter of fact, in the district in which I live, the largest farmers' co-operative association in England, with a turnover of £500,000. That is quite a different thing. That is not carrying the process as far as actually selling to the consumer. I do not suppose the hon. Member would quite like that competition.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, I would.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to pursue the subject, but the unfortunate farmer has not that financial advantage. What we who represent agriculture have tried to do is to loyally accept the national decision that has been given, and see that it shall be carried out with the least possible damage to the agricultural interest, and on the whole that is now how the Bill stands. As it will leave the House it will do the least possible damage to agriculture consistently with carrying out the principle of permitting Canadian cattle into the country. I do not think it is much use prophesying. Some may say we shall have a large influx, others may say we shall have none at all. We shall see. I do not think there will be any very large influx. A great deal depends on what happens on the Canadian border. One of the most potent influences which induced Canada to press for this legislation was the fact that the United States applies a very heavy duty upon the export of cattle from Canada to her natural market over the United States boundary, and if in the course of political movements, which are often pretty rapid in the matter of tariffs on the United States side of the boundary, that tariff were materially reduced, there is very little doubt that trade would flow back again and very few cattle would come to this country, For that reason I certainly hope, for the stability of our food supply, we shall not become very largely dependent upon this supply of
Canadian cattle. As we hope to secure an increased supply of British-bred meat, it is very desirable—I know hon. Members who represent the co-operative movement agree with me—that that meat, and other agricultural produce as well, when sold, should be distinguishable from other meat and produce which are not British. I asked the Minister if he could give us an assurance, before the House parted with the Bill, that some Measure on the lines of the Merchandise Marks Bill, introduced in the last Session of the last Parliament, should be brought forward next Session. I ask him now how far he is able to give me such an assurance. I think it is the general feeling throughout the country and the House that one of the ways in which agriculture may be helped—and everyone realises how badly it needs help—is to get the advantage of equality in what it puts on the market. This is one of the things which is most necessary, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance that the matter will be favourably considered and that we may hope to see such a Bill.

Sir N. MOORE: What about Clause 4?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend heard what I said yesterday when I asked my right hon. Friend whether any communication had taken place between the Dominions and the Government on the matter. He was not aware of any at that time. I am not aware now what the position is as to that, but I do not go back from the view I then expressed, that whatever those negotiations may have been, it would be extremely dangerous, in the interests of British agriculture and the health of our flocks and herds, to place in the hands of a Minister absolute power by regulation to admit stock from any part of the world which was under the British flag. It is a very large order. Perhaps the strongest plank in the Canadian case, and the one that was most strongly urged, was the absolute immunity, over a long period of years, of Canadian cattle from any form of virulent disease, and I do not think, had that not been the case, this Bill would ever have been introduced. Does anyone suggest that if cattle in Canada had been subject to blackwater, rinderpest and other such diseases as prevail in South Africa, and other diseases in other parts of the Dominions, the Bill would
have been introduced and passed? I do not know what engagements the Government may have entered into.

Sir N. MOORE: You believe in them honouring their pledges?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly, but I am not responsible for the pledges. I am responsible to see that agriculture and the country generally get what we think to be right, fair and just and in its interest. If pledges are given by any Government which, in my opinion, if implemented, would' bring Measures into operation which would be detrimental to the national interests and to those of agriculture, I can only regret it and I should oppose those Measures on their merits. It is for the Government to consider their pledges and not for me. I am speaking only on the merits, and I certainly say when the Government gives pledges those pledges should be honoured, but also before they are given they and their consequences should be very carefully considered. It is very unfortunate if this House is placed in a position of having to do something which it knows to be wrong because an ill-considered pledge was given without due consideration of the consequences which might follow at some subsequent date. On the merits I am strongly opposed to any extension of this addition of imported cattle beyond the limits already included in the Bill.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that if Clause 4 had remained in the Bill it would have rested with the Minister by regulation to admit cattle from South Africa with blackwater, rinderpest and other diseases. That is an entire misrepresentation of the Clause— [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that!"]—No Order of the Minister would be effective unless and until it were approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Not positively approved—only not disapproved.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The effect of an Order if approved would be to place cattle coming from one of the other Dominions in the same position as cattle coming from Canada. An Order might be issued which would lie on the Table for 21 days, and would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I am quoting the Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): It is true the Order had to be made and to lie on the Table of each House for 21 days, and if during that time either House expressed dissent it would not become operative. Of course, this Clause is no longer in the Bill.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I wish to make a very earnest appeal to the Minister to have this considered in another place. He gave a promise last night in these words:
If the Committee will allow ms to leave this Clause over to Report I will undertake to communicate with the Colonial Office, find out exactly what has passed between us and the Colonies, and if I find that there is no really vital reason why the Clause should be kept in I will be quite ready to have it removed on Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1922; col. 2539, Vol. 159.]

Sir R. SANDERS: I made the promise, but the House did not agree to it.

Dr. CHAPPLE: That appeal was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford and that reply was given. Another appeal was made later that the Clause should be dropped now and reinstated upon Report, or reconsidered —I presume reconsidered in another place. May I make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now to have that reconsidered? The deletion of this Clause will cause very serious disappointment in the other Dominions. They have been waiting for many years for this very provision. They knew it was impossible to get this while the embargo remained on Canadian cattle, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford and his friends have used the argument that if any concession were made to the other Dominions it would be used as a lever by the Canadians for getting the embargo removed from Canada. There has been a desire on the part of many in New Zealand and Australia, but more especially in New Zealand, to export breeding cattle to this country. Other Dominions have been waiting for this legislation and the Government were well advised to introduce Clause 4. They not only fulfilled pledges, but they fulfilled the expectations of the other Dominions in putting in that Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman was far too hasty and, to use the words which he used at that Box a little while ago, far too weak in making the. concessions he made last night. If he had left Clause 4
in and had it reconsidered to-day, or if he will now have it reconsidered in another place, I feel sure there will be a strong desire on the part of many that that Clause should be retained.
If the Clause is not there, it means that South Africa and Australia and New Zealand are in the same position as Canada has always been up to the passing of the Bill. Supposing it were in, there is ample provision for preventing any injustice being done to the breeders of this country by the danger incurred through importing from an infected country. If the Clause were in, New Zealand could appeal to have it applied to her. In New Zealand they have never in their whole history had any epidemic disease among their stock at all. It does not exist to-day, and it has never been there. They have had tuberculosis, but it has been practically stamped out by the vigilance of their Department and their veterinary surgeons. They have a class of stock which we have not got here. They have an entirely new breed of sheep, the Corriedale, which is very valuable. They are being exported, and they are very greatly valued and highly prized in South America. They have improved many breeds of stock. They have improved the Frisian cow and they have some wonderful records of butter fat. I know of one Frisian cow which has already produced 1,145 lbs. of butter fat in 365 days. We can greatly improve the breeding here, because the breeders in every country are constantly looking for new strains, which are essential to keep up the high standard. The Clause is permissive, and not mandatory, and if it had been in it would have been possible for New Zealand to apply to have an Order laid on the Table for 21 days, and if upon inquiry New Zealand was absolutely free from any of those diseases which would be a danger to us it would not, of course, become law. The argument of my hon. Friend is that because it would be dangerous to introduce cattle from South Africa, where they have had rinderpest, the other Dominions should be penalised. If Clause 4 were reinserted in the House of Lords it would enable any one of these Dominions to make a direct appeal. As the Clause is permissive, it is within the power of this House to prevent its becoming law if the House thought fit, and it is also within
the power of this House to allow any one of these Dominions to supply breeding stock if they wish. Those Dominions would never export stores. The hon. Member for North Islington (Sir Newton Moore) said he had made inquiries, and that stores might be brought here from those distant Dominions. It is impossible. It is not worth while bringing store beasts from Australia and keeping them at sea for six weeks or two months in order to fatten them here and to make ten or twelve pounds on them.

Sir N. MOORE: It would not take more than four weeks, coming through the canal.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Through the Suez or the Panama Canal?

Sir N. MOORE: The Suez Canal.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I should like to be on that cattle boat if I happened to be in a hurry. Australia and New Zealand have been waiting and looking for this Clause, and it is a very serious thing, and will create, very grave discontent against the party opposite, who have always stood for Imperialism and for trade with the Dominions. The Prime Minister has made that one of the most important planks in his platform, especially trade with our Dominions, but when the opportunity occurs, the party which has supported that argument, and the party which supports the Prime Minister, deletes this Clause, and denies these Dominions the advantage that has been given to Canada. I feel very strongly about this, and I was extremely surprised when the Minister of Agriculture so weakly conceded to the clamour from the benches behind him. It was quite obvious that he had not seriously considered the question. It was obvious that he was not in possession of the facts. When he promised that he would make inquiries of the Colonial Office, and would reintroduce the Clause on Report if it was thought advisable, my hopes rose. I trust that he will seriously reconsider the matter and see if he cannot reintroduce the Clause in another place.

Mr. ROYCE: I am very pleased that this Bill has reached the stage of the Third Reading, and I hope that it will soon pass into law. It has been a very great pleasure to me to listen to this Debate, if for no other reason than to realise the educative value of this House,
especially applied to some of my hon. Friends on the opposite benches. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), in common with many of his colleagues, strenuously opposed the importation of Canadian cattle, and it is very sweet to hear him advocating the Third Reading to-day. I remember the time when there were only about three of us on this side of the House who stood up for the principle of importing Canadian cattle, and it is a great pleasure to me to find that this subject has reached its present stage. I have recently paid a visit to Canada and have visited such important agricultural centres as Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton. During the time that I was in Canada we had many opportunities of hearing expressions of public opinion, and only on one occasion did I hear the word cattle used, and then the speaker, a farmer, said that he thought there would be very little advantage to Canada in this matter, because their market lay in the direction of the United States. It is, however, very gratifying, so far as the feelings of Canada are concerned, that the stigma in regard to Canadian cattle has been removed.
The extraordinary arguments that have been used on the opposite benches, especially with regard to diseases in other animals that might possibly have come in under Clause 4, have been most interesting. What is known as red-water fever in the South has become black-water fever in the House of Commons. Other diseases have been mentioned, but they are entirely peculiar to that country, and, as far as I know, are not in any way susceptible of being carried here. I do not think they are infectious in any degree. These diseases have been argued as a reason for the abolition of Clause 4. I am sorry that that Clause has been deleted, and I hope it will be restored, because immediately you leave the door open for the admission of Canadian cattle, it will follow as a natural consequence that the other Dominions would like to have the same privilege. When I voted in favour of the removal of the embargo, I did so with a certain amount of fear, representing an agricultural constituency, but when I visited my constituency, I found that the representatives on the Council of Agriculture in England did not really
represent the feelings of the constituency, because some old graziers there remembered, with a great deal of pleasure, the great value of Canadian cattle when they were imported 30 years ago. It would have been argument which some of my hon. Friends from Ireland would have hardly relished, if I told them that these graziers said that Canadian cattle do very much better on English pastures than Irish cattle, and that they may make very excellent meat, and very cheap meat. It will not only remove the stigma that was put on Canadian cattle, but will remove a breach of faith on the part of the legislators of this country when this Bill becomes law and Canadian cattle can be imported into this country. I hope that other cattle, properly inspected —because there is no reason why they cannot be properly inspected—will be permitted to come into the country. If we needed an illustration of the advisability of bringing over cattle from the Dominions, it was provided by the shipment of cattle from South Africa recently, which realised such extraordinary prices. That is an illustration that the traders of this country welcome the opportunity of improving the strain of cattle in this country.

Major MOLSON: I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider very carefully the question of omitting Clause 4. I do not wish to increase any danger to the herds in England, but I do feel, after the arguments that we have heard, that this is a very serious question, and I think the Clause might be reinserted in another place. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see that the imported animals should be branded in some way perfectly distinct. In the desperate state of English agriculture at the present time, it ought to get the most legitimate and thorough protection that we can give it, just as we give protection to distressed industries under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. This is practically the same thing. The agricultural Members are in a very small minority, only representing about one-sixth of the House, but I realise that other hon. Members sympathise very deeply with the state of agriculture, and it is on these grounds that I appeal for sympathetic consideration in connection with this Bill.

Colonel NEWMAN: I suppose no other Member has ever exported or sold more store cattle from Irish farms than I. I do not think this Bill will deal a deadly blow at those of us who endeavour to sell Irish store cattle in this country. It will make it more difficult and rather more expensive. There will be certain delays and certain small expenses, but in the main it will afford a greater measure of protection to the English breeder. The English breeder will have better protection as against the Irish breeder, and the English breeder ought to have that protection. No people from the South of Ireland in this House can speak with authority for the Free State, although the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Harbison), who ran in double harness with a Sinn Feiner at the last election, spoke with a certain delegated authority for the Free State, and they spoke with a very sad lack of humour.
6.0 P.M.
The Free State has taken, under protest, the status of an Overseas Dominion, They want to be foreigners in that respect, and they consider this Government is a foreign Government, but when we come to the cattle of the Free State, they want their cattle to be considered, not as imported foreign cattle, but as animals from the United Kingdom. Speaking as a resident in the South of Ireland and a citizen of the Free State, it seems to me that this Bill is a forerunner of many Bills which are going to place the Irish Free State, quite rightly, in exactly the same position as a Dominion Government, no more and no less. I confess, therefore, that I was very much concerned at Question Time when the hon. Member for the Scotland Division asked the Minister of Agriculture who represented the Free State and who spoke for the South of Ireland in the negotiations with the Dominion of Canada. My right hon. Friend said that the Free State was represented by Mr. Churchill, who was the Minister for the Overseas Dominions. I thought, what a chapter! Here is Mr. Churchill, who tried to win the last election at Dundee by posting Dundee
I am the man who smashed the cattle embargo.
That is the man who represented me, as a large exporter of Irish stores. Our agriculture in the South of Ireland is in as bad a way as yours in England, and we had to look to Mr. Churchill to defend our interests. I look at this matter with great apprehension. Who is going to look after me as a citizen of the Irish Free State?
I had meant to put a question on this subject, but I shall not be able, but it is obvious that we Free Staters should have something in the nature of an agent-general to represent us here in England, and I hope that very soon there will be an agent-general. Then if it is considered to be in the interests of agriculture to make more restrictions—the Minister has the most horrible powers under this Bill —the right hon. Gentleman must consult with the agent-general before he does anything. Just think of what he can do to us in Ireland. He may prohibit the landing in Great Britain of any animals and any class of animals brought from Ireland or impose such conditions on their landing as he thinks fit. These are great powers, and I hope that before using them he will consult with the agent-general for the Free State. I support this Bill, though it is going to cost me money, because I feel that it is right to support it. My butcher assures me that once you get these Canadian stores in he is going to drop the price of meat by 6d. a lb. I understand therefore that I am going to lose something like £2 on every store which I sell from my Irish farm. I do not know whether that is going to come about, but I believe that meat is going to be made cheap, and, though it is going against my interests as a citizen of the Irish Free State, I intend to vote for this Bill.

Mr. FALCONER: I rise not for the purpose of discussing any of the detailed points arising on this Bill, though I may say that I am entirely in favour of the retention of Clause 4. My object in rising is to give expression, as one who has voted against the embargo ever since it was first established and who represents a part of the country which is probably as much concerned with getting a good supply of Canadian cattle as any other, to express recognition of the way in which this subject has been dealt with by the House of Commons on Second Beading and in Committee, and the way in which
the House did what was due to Canada having regard to all that has taken place. I think that we can now say to Canada that the House of Commons at least has kept faith with her. Whatever may be said with regard to the matters which led up to the present position, the spirit in which Members who themselves do not agree with the policy have endeavoured to carry out our obligation to Canada is one which makes a Member of the House of Commons proud. I believe that it is a good Bill so far as I am able to judge with such experience as I had. I began by importing cattle in the days when they were first admitted from Canada, and I have had to do with cattle more or less ever since. But it is a Bill which depends particularly on the way in which it is administered.
Though in general politics it is not my business to praise the present Government or any Member of it, I think that the Board of Agriculture have approached this subject with a desire to do to Canada what Canada expects, and that in introducing this Bill they have submitted a practical Measure. I hope that in administering this Measure the spirit which has been shown throughout by the Ministry of Agriculture will prevail. A great many of us in Scotland have not bad as much faith in the Ministry of Agriculture as we should have wished to have, especially in connection with this matter. There was no doubt that their consistent policy has been to oppose this change, and that naturally has led Scottish farmers who desired to get in Canadian cattle freely to think that English agricultural interests were preferred to those of Scotland. I must say that I retained that view, but I have been disarmed by what I have heard during the discussion of this Measure, and I hope that the attitude which has been shown towards this legislation will be shown also in experience of the actual administration. If that is so, I am sure that the Ministry of Agriculture in this country will find friends in Scotland, where hitherto they have found a great many people who were actively opposed to them, or were very doubtful with regard to the proper consideration by them of Scottish interests. I hope that I have not trespassed beyond what a new Member may say, but the matter has been very much in my mind,
and I desired to give expression to my views because they are shared by the great body of Scottish farmers.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not show any sign of weakening by reintroducing Clause 4. There is no analogy between allowing Canadian cattle to be admitted, and the suggestion that at some future time cattle from other parts of the Empire should also be admitted to this country. We debated the question of the importation of Canadian cattle in the last Parliament as well as in this, but this House has had no opportunity of having the facts put before it with regard to cattle from South Africa, Australia or any part of our Dominions, and it would be very much against the interests of agriculture merely because of some pledge of which we know nothing to say that such cattle should be admitted under this Bill without further consideration and without an opportunity for this House to discuss fully the possible difficulty and danger which might be entailed for this country if that policy were adopted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) referred just now to the necessity of something being done to enable the consumer to know whether he was going to eat British or foreign meat, and he suggested that in the near future some Bill should be introduced very much on the lines of the merchandise marks being introduced last Session, enabling the consumer to know what was English and what was foreign meat. I rather understood the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say that that was a matter which did not need to be discussed on this Bill. On the Second Reading the point was not raised from these benches. It was raised by the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Barnes), supported by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, and by hon. Members from Wales and by other hon. Members, and considerable pressure was put on the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he would consider the matter favourably. The matter is one of great importance which affects English agriculture enormously. The right hon. Gentleman had not an opportunity on the Second Reading of replying to the point, and should take opportunity on the Third Reading of giving a favourable answer and intimating that he will try to per-
suade the Government that it is their duty and that it is necessary to bring in a Bill such as is desired at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir R. SANDERS: I wish first to say a word about Clause 4, which was first mentioned by the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir N. Moore), and has been referred to by other hon. Members. Why did not hon. Members say all these things last night? I was here for a considerable time and never heard one Member say anything in favour of this Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There were speeches from this bench.

Sir R. SANDERS: All the speakers were entirely against the Clause until I got up to say that I would withdraw it. I waited for some time. It was not that I was afraid that the Government were going to be beaten. I have no doubt that we should have got a majority if we had stuck by the Clause, but this is a biggish Bill which the House is being asked to pass in a very short time. I think that Members of the Committee last night met the Government extremely well. I think that they realised that they were being asked to do something special, and fell in with the Government for a special occasion in a way for which we are exceedingly grateful. It was evident that this Clause raised a question different from the questions raised by the other Clauses of the Bill. It was a question that could be treated separately, and it was a question on which it seems to me that there was such a very acute divergence of opinion as to suggest that there was very strong feeling in the House that that was a Clause which the Government ought not to press in a Bill like this. Realising the spirit of forbearance which Members who do not approve of the principle of this Bill had shown, we did not wish to treat them too hard. I did not think it was a fair thing, as they were accepting a great many conditions to which they had strong objections, to press upon them this Clause, which really was not essential to the Bill. About the future of that Clause, all that I can say is that communications with the Dominions are going on at the present time. An hon. Member asked how the Bill would apply to horses. This Bill makes no difference in any sort of way.
Any horses that could come in before this Bill was introduced can come in now.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: May I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman? Is it not a fact that Clause 4 was placed in the Bill, and was shown to the authorities of the Dominions, and that a promise was given that it would be included? Have not definite communications been made to representatives of the Dominions that the Clause would be in the Bill, and was it not accepted by them as it was originally drafted in the Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is exactly what I cannot say. I was not at the Conference which settled this Bill, and I do not know how far it has been communicated to the representatives of the Colonics. Communications are going on with the Colonies now. I must say a word about the Merchandise Marks Act. I quite realise the force of the arguments which have been urged by my hon. Friend. This Bill is now under the consideration of the Government, and I shall do what I can to support their views and to urge them upon the Government. A question has been raised as to branding, so as to make it evident that an animal was of foreign origin. I have already accepted an Amendment to the Bill insisting on indelible; marking. I wish to thank the representatives of Ireland for the course they have pursued towards the Bill. I quite realise that they felt very sore about the matter. I realise also that their constituents felt probably even more sore. They made their protest straightly and strongly, and I should be the last to object to their having done so. I would thank them that, having made their protest and having made their opposition quite clear, they left it at that, and did not employ arts which I have known to be employed, not only by Irishmen, but by other Members, to make it unduly difficult to get the Bill through in a reasonable time. Probably they realised, as the House realises, that it is a great thing to get this question settled. I have been of those who do not think that the matter is going to make very much difference to anybody. If those who prophesy that there will be great drops in the price of food find that their prophecies turn out entirely false, at all events they may console themselves with the reflection that those who think that they will be greatly
injured by the Bill may find that that prophecy falls to the ground as well.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate making any inquiry from the Colonial Office in time to have the fact known in another place, if it be thought desirable that Clause 4 should be reinstated?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Secretary for the Colonies is in another place.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not intend to speak and should not have done so had it not been for the speech of the Minister. He puts down this deliberate slight to the Dominions, particularly to Australia, which has resulted from the excision of Clause 4, to the apparent unanimity of the House last night. That is a misunderstanding which ought to be cleared up at once. There was apparently, up to a certain point, unanimity in the House last night, but it arose solely from the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no sort of bargain or arrangement with the Colonies which rendered necessary the retention of Clause 4, and it was on that understanding that the House accepted his first offer to leave in Clause 4, and to consider on the Report stage, after he has made inquiries at the Colonial Office, whether it would not be possible on Report to take that Clause out. Then the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) arose and slaughtered the Minister and again the Minister gave way. But his second giving way, in which he said that he would cut the Clause out then, and that if he found later that there was need to put it in he would have it restored on the Report stage, has not-been carried out, although he knows now that there was a definite bargain, and that Australia and South Africa were counting on Clause 4 in order that they might at least say that they had equal treatment with Canada. Why has the right hon. Gentleman done that? Because he has been again terrorised by those behind him. Now he is riding off on the plea that the Bill is going up to another place, that the Secretary for the Colonies sits in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave to the Secretary of State the unpleasant duty of restoring the Bill to the only form in which it can be satisfactory to the greater part of the Empire.
I think that that is playing with the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "Why did not the Opposition show me what they felt last night?" They showed what they felt in the Division Lobby.

Sir R. SANDERS: I did not speak of the Opposition, but of my hon. Friends below the Gangway.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The official Opposition in this House last night voted in favour of the Government's Clause, and they found to their surprise that the Government Whips were put on to defeat the Government's own Clause in the Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that he is surprised that there should be such a fuss in the House to-day. We have only just discovered how the right hon. Gentleman conducts Government Bills. We did not know that he did not take steps to acquaint himself with the ordinary elementary facts of the situation before he sat on the Front Bench. He ought to have known yesterday what the Colonies felt about Clause 4, and now he ought to take steps to put the matter right. It is to be hoped that such steps will be taken in another place. Whether that be done or not, I want the Colonies to understand that, so far as His Majesty's Opposition is concerned, we believe in keeping bargains.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I wish to say a few words on the same point. In strict confidence, I have seen the correspondence. I have seen a definite pledge of the Government that Clause 4 would be inserted in this Bill. I have seen the document. Therefore, I say that it is simply scandalous, after the Government have given the Colonics a definite written understanding that that Clause would be in the Bill—an understanding that the Dominions would be treated as a whole— that the promise should not be kept. As it is in black and white from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, surely the right hon. Gentleman will honour the bargain? If he has not the courage to do it in this House, I hope he will see that it is done in another place. What is the use of kow-towing to one Dominion and injuring your relations with another? I should have thought that the proper and fair thing to do was, not to consider the question of distance, or whether Australia can become a competitor in landing cattle
in this country, but to give the Dominions at least the sentimental satisfaction of knowing that they are being all treated alike. That is far more important than the point whether they can trade or not. I suggest that as the Bill has now gone too far for revision in this House, the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to say that, as there is a bargain—there is no doubt about that—he is prepared to promise that the blunder will be rectified in another place.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [7th December.]

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

1. "That A Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the expenses of Coinage, and for the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,866,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."

CLASS III.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £933,841, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including Expenses of Dublin Metropolitan Police Pensions and certain extra Statutory Payments."

CLASS II.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,360, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."

CLASS VI.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £282,876, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Officers and Men in Ireland, including Grants for Education and Resettlement and for other purposes, and for Pensions Appeals Tribunals."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for grants to Refugees from Ireland for the relief of distress."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1922–23.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £340,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, on account of Compensation to Army Officers and others."

Mr. NICKOL: I beg to move to leave out "£750,000," and to insert instead thereof "£749,900."
We are being asked to pass a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of making the further provision required owing to the necessity of withdrawing silver coin which has become surplus and issuing a smaller number of coins than was originally anticipated. It seems rather curious that while a profit can be made by coining silver, even with silver at a higher price in the market that it has now, an extra £750,000 should be required for the purposes indicated. A large number of coins are to be withdrawn and a smaller number is to be issued, and yet we are asked to face this extra cost. Is it the case that the coins which are being thus rather surreptitiously withdrawn are coins which, according to the hon. Member who represents Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), are coins which never had any real circulation, coins which were so defective both in their substance and their manufacture that they became wholly useless? We were told the other evening that the hon. Member had presented the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a specimen lot of these scandalously inadequate coins, and we were led to believe that the coins contained a very large proportion of base
metal. We have had this happening previously in the history of England. I do not know whether or not it happened in Scotland. For our sins, we in the Scottish schools are forced to learn rather more about English history than we are ever allowed to see of Scottish history.
I am rather in the position of being a zealous reader and pupil of the hon. Member for Oxford University. I remember spending two sessions in Glasgow University, when I was forced to read some of the hon. Gentleman's books— which were very much less appreciated than the speech he made the other evening—so that on points of English history I am quite prepared to bow to his authority. So far as I recollect, when that famous and rather impecunious monarch Henry VIII., who had a penchant for matrimonial adventures, shuffled off this mortal coil, his daughter managed to make a profit out of redeeming the base coinage. In the 20th century our Government does not seem to be as clever as their historical predecessors. They cannot emulate the Chancellor of Queen Elizabeth's time and make a profit out of bringing back this base coinage, because I notice on the Estimate that we are asked to pay £750,000 for the purpose. I am not so much interested in the historical side of the question, and it certainly does not impinge on the chief purpose for which I was elected to the House—to maintain that national production is rather better than private enterprise—because on this particular subject national enterprise has held the field so long that the only national concern of those who attempt private enterprise in the coinage industry is that they are provided with national homes if they happen to be caught.
I have seen a number of the coins which were issued, and they may not all have been quite so bad as some of the specimens handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I was told not so long ago that certain mistakes were made in the adding of the base metals to the silver when the price of silver became rather high. I am told, though I have no personal experience in the matter, that if one of the new florins were put down on the bar of a public house on which beer had been spilt, it became almost indistinguishable from a penny after having lain in the stale beer for
half an hour. I do not know whether there is something wrong with the amount of acidity in the beer, or whether there is something wrong with the metal, but I suggest when these coins are withdrawn we might have some statement on the matter from the chemical standpoint, and an explanation of what happened in many of these curious cases. I do not know whether the metal used to make the coins baser was the metal which happens to be my own namesake. I understand that metal does enter into the composition, and that the compound known as nickel sulphide may have been formed in the process I have described on the bar or counter of a public house. I should also like to ask, are we in the near future going to get rid not merely of these base coins but of the abominable nuisance of the threepenny bits. In these days of increased prices—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that this is not the original and main Estimate for the Mint, on which all these matters can be raised and properly discussed. This is only a Supplementary Vote, supplementing the Vote which was passed earlier in the year, and any Debate on it must be limited to the purpose for which the supplementary sum is asked.

Mr. NICHOL: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall confine myself to the point set out in the footnote to the Supplementary Estimate. We are told that the further provision is required owing to the necessity of withdrawing such silver coins as have become surplus and the re-coinage of less silver coin than was originally anticipated. I wish to know how it comes about that we are being asked to provide £750,000 for this purpose? Where does that money disappear to, if more coins are going to be withdrawn than are going to be issued, and if there is going to be a less silver issue than was anticipated. The House is also due some information on the chemical aspect of the matter—an explanation of what went wrong in the Mint and what metals were used. I find it very difficult to get information on that subject and on other points connected with the coinage. In the past, as I have shown, profits were made out of an exactly similar situation. I am not against the withdrawal of the base coins if that be the nature of the proposal—though it is
not explicitly stated in this Supplementary Estimate—but I think the House is justified in asking the Chancellor for more information than has been vouchsafed to us so far.

Mr. MUJR: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems strange that in the original Estimate for 1922–23 the sum required was only £10, and now when a sum of £750,000 is being asked for, we are not allowed to raise all matters affecting the coinage. I may be wrong, and if I am I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put me right, but it looks as if the small sum were put into the original Estimate, not because it was the whole amount required, but in order to avoid all these items being raised then and that the supplementary sum of £750,000 is to be allowed to go through without any serious discussion. The sum of £750,000 seems very large merely for the withdrawal of surplus coinage and the recoinage of a smaller quantity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th December said it was due to the large amount of surplus coins and he might have added to the surplus of spurious coins. From the point of view of the man who is unemployed at the moment, there does not seem to be a surplus of coins. If this expenditure of money was going to provide any further employment or do anything which even indirectly increased employment, we might consider it as already passed, but on the points raised by the Mover of the Amendment we are entitled to, and we expect, an answer, I do not know if I am in order in raising any question further than the item specifically dealt with in the Estimate. There are, however, other matters apart from currency, which would seem to come under this Vote including expenses of coinage, expenses of the preparation of medals, dyes for postage and other stamps and His Majesty's seals.

Mr. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the heading of the Vote. The heading of a Supplementary Vote must be the same as the heading of the main Vote in the Estimates of the year. That does not open the right to discuss those subjects unless reference is made to them in the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: At a late hour on last Thursday night—how far after
midnight I cannot say—I made what I am afraid was a rather clamorous appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, and asked that he should use the money now being granted entirely with the object of withdrawing from currency the horrible coinage of 1920–22. The right hon. Gentleman very unobtrusively went away before I had quite completed my oration.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin) indicated dissent.

Sir C. OMAN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He left just after I had completed my oration. I, at first, hoped this was a sign of grace; that my argument had been so convincing and that the coinage of which he had been speaking was such a source of scandal to him, that he would not stand up to defend it. I thought the little collection of coins which I left with him last week might possibly have struck terror to his soul. As he has brought forward the Estimates to-night, without making any preliminary statement to the effect that he had been moved to sorrow by the arguments addressed to him last Thursday night, I am constrained to accept the alternative explanation of his departure, namely, that he thought there was little or nothing to answer in the arguments I put before him. I am bound, therefore, to state them once more in the shortest terms, but I hope not to detain the House more than seven minutes. The coinage of 1920–21–22 is, as I said last Thursday, an absolutely shameless production, for two reasons. The first is that it is inartistic to a degree. It is far the most ugly coinage, hardly, perhaps, excluding the Victorian coinage of 1887, that has ever been issued from the English Mint. It should be withdrawn at once, because it is produced by the wrong method, the King's head having been copied by that curious instrument the reducer, instead of being cut properly by a die-sinker as in the old days. The result of using a mechanical reproduction, on a small scale, of the original model has been that His Majesty's hair is barely visible on the larger coins, and rubs away in a few weeks' circulation. It is a most inartistic and inappropriate thing to use the reducer where the old die-cutter was supreme, in the great days of Wyon and of Pistrucchi. Therefore, from the mere artistic point
of view, I think these coins should be withdrawn.
The second thing is, that I hope to see them withdrawn from the point of view of mere shameful fragility. Of the specimens that I had the honour to leave the right hon. Gentleman last week, all had begun to flake off in various points, some in larger and some in smaller parts: some off the rims, in others large parts of the King's head coming off. You cannot handle the worst pieces of this coinage but they come to pieces in your hands, like the housemaid and the milk jug. It really is not a credit to the mechanical art of England in the twentieth century that its coinage dissociates itself into fragments, and, when placed in a large bag, always leaves some small residuary dust and scraps at the bottom. I have noted that at the banks. Hon. Members may not all have seen coins of the worst kind, but if they will study them, they will understand how bad they are. There is, therefore, every reason to get rid of this abominable currency, and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will not rule I am out of order if I spend one minute more in arguing that the right hon. Gentleman will have a wonderful opportunity next year of clearing away entirely this horrible stuff. I should be ready to grant him a good deal more money if he would do that, and give us a new coinage with a new type entirely. And, if I may suggest a type to him, I would say that when, copying the example of the Americans, we celebrate the great inter-Empire exhibition by a new coinage, he might place on it, not any of the devices that occur in the too complicated coats of arms nor the badly designed lion (badly copied from the George IV lion) on the shilling. But rather let him put on the new coinage a figure of Peace. "Give peace in our time, O Lord," for that is what we all desire. Let us clear away this dreadful stuff and replace it with honest white currency that will be a pleasure to us all to see and handle.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not at all certain that the speech to which we have just listened does not amount to lèese-majesté. If it had been delivered in the Prussian Reichstag, there would have been trouble, but I do not wish to comment on the King's head so much as to ask the Government how it is that this
change in the currency has not paid. In previous years, when we had good silver coin, the coinage of that good silver coin produced profits, which appeared under Miscellaneous Revenue in the annual Budget, and ran sometimes into millions. As I understand it, we have recalled all the good silver coins, we have re-minted those silver coins, we have mixed the silver with other stuff, and we have reproduced an inferior set of silver coins such as we know to-day. How is it that that change has not resulted in more profits, instead of resulting in less profits? If, when we were coining good silver coin, we made a handsome thing out of it, because the amount of silver in the coin was not as much as the coin itself was worth as a token coin, how is it that now, when there is only about half that amount of silver, we make a loss on it?

Sir F. BANBURY: It depends on the price of silver.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Exactly. That has fallen to less than one-half what it was when this experiment in coinage was undertaken; why, then, has not this deal been a more profitable one? As far as I can understand it, the recoining has cost six and a half millions, and what we have got from the sale of the coin has amounted to six millions roughly, so that in our revised Estimate there is a loss of some three-quarters of a million. How has that come about? Silver has been going down in price all the time. Are we to understand from this foot-note that the loss of £750,000, instead of the profit of £200,000, is due to there not having been sufficient demand for the new coin? How is it that, whereas in previous years we made a profit on coining good silver coin, we are now making a loss on coining bad silver coin? It is not a question of the artistic merits of the coinage that really interests or is of importance. The real curse of this debasement of the coinage is that in all our Crown Colonies, particularly in Africa, the natives now find themselves receiving not good coins, but coins that they know are bad coins. They lose faith in British honour and in British prestige, and the whole reputation of this country suffers. Let us, therefore, go back to good silver coinage as soon as possible, to the coining of good silver money out of which we make profits instead of the coining of bad silver coins from which we make only losses.

Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of retiring as soon as he had finished his speech the other night, and I think I can bring this accusation against the right hon. Gentleman, that I asked him the same question as did the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol), who opened this Debate, and got no reply. That question was, How on earth is it, after having reduced the fineness of our silver money and issued it broadcast, we show a loss on it? We know quite well that this debasement was brought about in a moment of panic. When the silver market was in an inflated condition in 1920. We could coin silver at 66d. an ounce of 925 fineness, without any loss at all, and we never bought any silver at any time over 52d., and the price of silver is now somewhere about 32d. It is incomprehensible how this loss has been brought about. I support the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) about the fact of our silver not being a local matter, not being a matter between Englishman and Englishman, where we can stand a good deal if the coins are not very good, but this money is now metal with 50 per cent. of base metal in it, the King's head is very badly cut, and it is scattered broadcast throughout the Empire as full legal tender for all purposes; and what has been said about the feeling of injustice of the natives in the West Indies and in Africa, owing to this bad money being forced upon them, is, I think, worthy of more attention than it has been given at the hands of our coinage authorities. We have made a bad experiment. We have never succeeded in doing anything good in this country when we have debased our money. Henry VIII made a great mess of it, and when James II used brass money in Ireland it was one of the most unwise things and produced the most terrible turmoil there. If what has been said to-night can in any way bring about the disappearance of this debased money from which we have been suffering, I think a very good thing will have been done. If they want to use it in any particular way, they can call it all in, and put it in the bank as a reserve against the issue of paper currency notes. The profits which we must have made at the start have now brought a just
judgment on us, and the best we can do is to turn our attention to issuing, the good old English money we used to issue in the days gone by.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Supplementary Estimate, on which I said a few words on the Committee stage, shows that an additional sum of £750,000 is required, but when I come to explain once more why that sum is necessary, I think the House will realise that the new coinage is no more responsible for the fact than Henry VIII himself, and I propose to leave Henry VIII out of this Debate. The hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol)—I do not know why—used the epithet "surreptitious" as applied to this Estimate. There is nothing surreptitious about it, unless one can use the word in a form which would make it mean that the Estimate is cast in such a way that it is very difficult to understand. If the hon. Member meant that by the word "surreptitious," I quite agree with him. I was at the Treasury nearly five years as Financial Secretary, and I used to explain to the House that I thought the Estimates were very often presented in a form which made them very difficult for the ordinary business man to understand. It is owing to that fact that so acute an intelligence as that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has been wrong in every point he has raised on this Estimate so far, which is a matter of the rarest occurrence with him. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) scented something surreptitious, and that was in the use of the word "token." I do not know whether he really put that forward as a device to prolong the Debate, which is a very worthy object, or whether he really wanted information, but, in all seriousness, if the Token Vote is puzzling, as it often is to new Members, I shall be only too pleased some time to explain to him the whole system of Token Votes privately, and not take up the time of the House by doing it now.
To come directly to the Vote, it consists of two sub-heads and a net total—two sub-heads only of the large number of subheads that appear in the original Vote as presented in the early summer. They are "L" and "M," "Redemption of silver coin," and "Appropriations-in-Aid." The redemption of silver coin is a process that is always going on, and the sum that is
put down under that sub-head consists of the face value of the coin as it is purchased, less the value of the bullion upon being recoined. In the same way the Appropriations-in-Aid consist of the face value of the coinage that is sold to the banks and issued, less the bullion therein, plus the cost of coinage, and also any surplus bullion that may be sold in the course of the year. It is very difficult at the beginning of the financial year to make an accurate forecast, either of the amount of coin which it may be necessary to purchase in that year or of the amount which may be issued. Both depend on general market conditions. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, and as another hon. Member said, that there have in the past been large profits. That has nothing to do with the quality of the coinage. It simply has been that normally the issue of coinage and the sale of surplus bullion more than pays for the redemption of silver coinage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is to say, the silver in the coin is of less value than the coin itself?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly. The hon. and gallant Member knows that, and now so less than ever. Before the War the average return made by this Vote to the Exchequer was something over £750,000. During the War all the normal procedure was upset, and owing to the enormous rise in values that led to the increased demand for silver coin, the coining of silver increased in this country so much that at first the amount of profit during the four years of the War showed a figure of something like £12,000,000, and after the War the country finds itself with a vastly larger currency than is required for the conduct of the business of the country. That is the real reason why we are, and shall probably for a short time to come yet, be in this difficulty. When any hon. Member may say that at the moment we may be showing a loss on this Vote, we ought really to look over the term of years, including the War years, when we shall see that the amount on the credit side is incomparably greater than that on the debit side.
In the course of the current year the issue of new coinage has been considerably less than has been expected, and in the
same way there has been a larger amount of coin to be redeemed than was expected at the beginning of the year. When I speak about coin being redeemed, what exactly do I mean? When coins go out they are purchased by the banks for use, and the general demand for currency in the country regulates the demand and supply of silver coins in exactly the same way that it regulates the demand and supply of any other article of commerce in the country. When these coins are not in circulation, when there comes a large quantity of silver coinage that is not wanted in the currencies of the country, it is really a drug in the hands of the banks, and though there is no statutory liability on the Government to redeem that coinage, there is, I think, a kind of moral liability. Here arises a point put by the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Muir). He said he could not see that in any way the expenditure of this money would touch unemployment. Well, directly, perhaps not; but it does touch it in this way. If silver coins which are not wanted for circulation are left in the hands of the banks, it locks up a certain amount of the banks' assets which might be used for the provision of the trade of the country. Therefore, when the Government takes £500,000, £1,000,000, £2,000,000, or whatever it: may be, of the currency that is not required for the business of the country, then, instead of having this stock which is perfectly useless for trade purposes, the banks get paid for it. The credit the banks get for it they can employ in the ordinary way of business to help raise fresh credits and stimulate trade.
So, in that way, it is a quite obvious fact that it is far better for the trade of the country that these surplus coins should be redeemed than that it should be left doing nothing and perfectly useless in the hands of the bank. I hope that has made the point clear as to how the figures in the Estimate have arisen. If I may say so, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), I have studied his examples of the coinage with very great interest. I have not found that any of the new coins I have been fortunate enough to possess myself have ever broken to pieces or crumbled in my pocket. Probably that is because I have not been able to keep them long enough. I do admit, however, as everyone must admit, and as the Mint has been the first to admit, that
many of the coins struck in 1920– that is the crucial date in regard to all these bad coins—

Sir C. OMAN: 1921, as well.

Mr. BALDWIN: I did not know that, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I admit that the coins struck before the Mint had mastered this rather difficult alloy were faulty, bad in colour, and not well struck. I think, however, that the 1922 issues are a very good colour. The question is, of course, how long they will remain good. If my hon. Friends opposite keep them at the bottom of a pint pot, say, for half an hour, I do not think that anyone will guarantee they will remain a good colour. They would not if they were Treasury notes. The coins are of good colour, and they are now well struck. I agree with my hon. Friend in this, that I should like to see, as much as ever he would, a really beautiful issue of English coins. It is many years since we have had one. I do not think that that arises on this Vote, but I hope what I have said has made clear the figures of the two Sub-heads under discussion.

Mr. MUIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the one or two points I put to him with regard to the alloys?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know that that strictly arises, and in fact I have not got them in my head. If the hon. Gentleman cares to come round to the Mint at some time, he shall be given the information he desires.

Mr. HARDIE: The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to show that the surplus amount of coinage is due largely to there being so many unemployed in the country, who have not that money in circulation as they would have if they had been at work. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman added that another reason for withdrawing the silver coinage was to accommodate the banks. Therefore, we see on these two points exactly where the Government stands so far as unemployment is concerned.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sorry to interrupt; the hon. Gentleman. I am very reluctant to interfere in Debate, but as we hope now to sell a very large quantity of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should not like
that statement to go uncorrected. If the money were fully employed it would not make very much difference to the silver that would have to be redeemed, because the enormous amount of silver that had to be struck during the War was not only due to the fact of very widespread employment, but also to an enormous rise in prices, which it is very improbable we shall see again.

Mr. HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman says he will take my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) to the Mint. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to Glasgow, and show him by experiment, if he eared to stay for three weeks exactly, what takes place in an industrial centre, such as that, when the works shut down for three weeks. If you take the banks operating in that district, you will find that what I said is absolutely true. I have made a special study of the circulation of coins. I have even marked the coins on the first Friday in a month, and have got those coins back again at the end of four weeks. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), referring to the coins that were bad, said they broke up in his pocket. They do not break up in ours. We shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what was the alloy which went wrong; whether it was due to overheating in the pots, or whether the metal was too cold when rolled. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is important. This is where we want to save money by having practical men who can make the coins better. In the production of a coin you ought not, because it is done by the nation, to consider it as something which should not be done correctly. The production of a coin should be a highly artistic business. It should be a very cheap business, and when the nation gets sufficient sense introduced into the business of the production of coins, it will not go on spending money uselessly in order to make something for the banks and other people to live by. That is really what happens to-day in regard to the coinage, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what was the proportion of silver and alloy in the new coinage? I want to know the temperature at which it was struck. That is of importance, if I am to know about the Mint.

Mr. SPEAKER: These are rather matters for the main Vote of the year and are not relevant on the Supplementary Vote. Next year the hon. Member can know all about them.

Mr. HARDIE: If the cost is going up, am I not in order in pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Supplementary Estimate the facts of the case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would lead to re-opening the whole of the main Vote for the year. We discussed those general principles when we were dealing with the whole Vote, and we cannot take them on the Supplementary Vote.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like an answer to the questions I have put because they are really very important. Apart altogether from the coins themselves as currency, I should like to see the work done in the proper way. As far as I am concerned the right hon. Gentleman, after five years at the Treasury, has been able to explain very little with regard to the defects in the coins, where they occur, and how they can be prevented.

Mr. R. MURRAY: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at all explained the points that have been raised in the course of this discussion. We have had the point repeatedly brought to our notice that the reduction in the cost of silver has brought about a loss entailing a further demand on the nation. We have not had a real explanation with regard to that matter. Apart from that, an essential and important matter, on which I gladly take my stand with the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), is that we ought to have honest coinage. It has been the strength of this nation in the past that we have had an honest coinage. If the Government have taken a step that has led us to a dishonest coinage, and which has caused them to come to the House to ask for an increased Vote, surely the moral of that is that we ought, as speedily as possible, to reverse the process, and to make the British silver coin what it has been in the past, a token and an emblem of wealth that can go to any part of the world and receive its due and just face value. Apart from that, we have had it stated recently in the Press—and this seems to me to be an important point in connection with this matter—that during
this year, and included, therefore, in the amount of extra money which is being asked for to-day, we have had a very considerable increase in the copper coinage, or, at all events, there has been no effort to make the copper coinage in circulation equivalent to the needs of the country, with the result that all over the country to-day there are masses of copper coinage with which the holders do not know what to do. I suggest that that is one of the points upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have satisfied us.
There is one more point. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), that if we had had an increase of employment, there would have been an increased demand upon the coinage. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to that, said it would make very little difference, and then, in contradiction of his own statement, he reminded us that the great amount of employment during the War cause a great demand upon the coinage. Surely the two things do not stand together. If an increase of employment during the War caused an increased demand for coinage, it follows that increased employment to-day would also cause an increased demand for coinage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to make an offer to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Muir) to let him know something with regard to the question of the token vote and other secrets of that kind. I can fancy the hon. Member for Springburn being interested in finding out something more on that subject, and I think there are plenty more in this House who are intensely interested in the business of the country which we are sent here to consider and understand. I suggest it is not a matter of taking the hon. Member for Maryhill under his wing and telling him about the token vote, but now is the appropriate time to explain to us what that token vote means, so that we shall understand it, and be quite able to explain to our constituents why there are not enough threepenny bits, florins and half-crowns. We have not had sufficient explanation to warrant us in voting this additional sum, and I shall therefore vote against it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. The reason for this comparatively large sum of money is that the coinage in circulation has been
found to be excessive, and we are having to pay for its redemption, but unless foresight has been exercised, which, so far, the Government have not been conspicuous for exercising, there will be another surplus very shortly. I want to know what stops have been taken to withdraw, or to prepare to withdraw, enough silver coinage to allow for the loss of territory through the setting up of the Irish Free State. I understand that, just as the Irish Free State is issuing its own postage stamps, it is shortly going to commence issuing its own coinage, and that means that there will be less demand for coinage from the Royal Mint in London, and we shall find a fresh surplus for which we shall have to pay in redemption next year. Has this matter been foreseen? Will this be the only redemption that can humanly be prophesied as necessary in the next few years? Is the Irish Free State going to start its own coinage; if so, when; how will that affect the coinage of this country, and, in particular, are we taking steps to see that we do not strike a surplus of coins, owing, probably, to the Mint officials not having heard of the mint in Southern Ireland having been set up? The £750,000 embodied in this Vote might have been used to build a couple of torpedo-boat destroyers, and so given employment on the Clyde, which is not to get any battleship, although the last Government were going to give them two battleships. That is an example of how these mistakes cost the country dearly, and I think we should have some assurance that this matter of the Irish Free State coinage has been foreseen.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: It seems to me that there are one or two statements which have been made from the Labour benches which need a little correction. There was the statement that the banks should return this silver coinage to the Government at its bullion value, and not at its face value, and I understood the hon. Member suggested that the banks were making a profit by getting the face value of the coinage. I suggest that, if that be their argument, the banks, when they get the silver from the Government, should purchase it at its bullion value instead of its face value, otherwise it would be an unfair bargain on the part of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be quite irrelevant to the question before us.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: The other point was that we should make our silver coins not a token, but something which was really worth its silver value. I do submit that, if that were done, and these coins went to the four corners of the earth, as has been suggested, should the price of silver rise, as it often does, these coins would never come back to this country. Therefore, they should be a token, and not a coin to represent its real silver value.

Mr. STEPHEN: I was rather interested in the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Vote, particularly in what he had to say with regard to the moral obligation which there was upon the Government to redeem the coinage which the banks had taken. On that point, I think we would be agreed with regard to the Government fulfilling all its moral obligations. At the same time, I would not like to see the Government of this country being more scrupulous in fulfilling its moral obligations with regard to banks than, say, with regard to unemployment in the country. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this redemption means that he is going to carry a stage further the process of the deflation of money in this country which many people are prone to regard as being one of the real underlying causes of so much of the unemployment to-day? He tells us that this silver is lying at the banks, is not circulating and, therefore, is useless, and that by taking it back from the banks, the banks somehow or other will be able to do something to encourage trade.
If these silver coins are left in the banks there is then in the banks something which will allow the banks to give credit to the various customers who may want credit. The unwillingness on the part of the banking community to give credit to enterprise is a great drawback, and yet we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us that it would be a good thing to carry this process of deflation further. No doubt, it might help the pound as against the dollar, but if it means, on the other hand, that we are increasing the volume of unemployment in this country, then I say that we should not allow this Vote to pass. There is also the statement that because of the
rise in prices during the years of War, there was ever so much silver circulated, and that it is never likely there will be such prices again. I think he is unduly optimistic with regard to this matter of prices. So far as some of us on these benches can see, if the private enterprisers have their way, we will have to face greatly increases prices again, and, after all, another great war is not without the bounds of possibility. Indeed, the foreign situation to-day suggests that this—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very long way from the subject before us.

Mr. STEPHEN: I bow to your ruling, but I was trying to develop the argument suggested to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is one other point I wish to make. I have a certain measure of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman

opposite, who spoke about the nature of the silver coins circulating at the present time. I sympathise with him to some extent, but, to my mind, even though the coinage is so poor, we on these benches would be delighted if there were a greater circulation of that coinage among the members of the community whom we represent. The whole trouble is that we in this House in this matter are not willing to take the wide view, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been serving the interests of our country better if he had suggested to the Minister of Labour that he could have this £750,000 in order to help the unemployed in the country.

Question put, "That '£750,000' stand part of the said Resolution."

The House divided; Ayes, 222; Noes, 131.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Alexander, E. E. (Leytan, East)
Collison, Levi
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Cope, Major William
Hinds, John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Darbishire, C. W.
Houfton, John Plowright


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Banks, Mitchell
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hurd, Percy A.


Becker, Harry
Ednam, Viscount
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jephcott, A. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Johnson, Sir L (Walthamstow, E.)


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Blundell, F. N.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bonwick, A.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lamb, J. Q.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Flanagan, W. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir p.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lorden, John William


Brown, Major D. C.(Hexham)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lorimer, H. D


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Furness, G. J.
Lougher, L.


Bruton, Sir James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gilbert, James Daniel
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Gretton, Colonel John
Margesson, H. D. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Cautley, Henry Strother
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Halstead, Major D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Harvey, Major S. E.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Clayton, G. C.
Hawke, John Anthony
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morris, Harold


Cohen, Major J Brunel
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Murchison, C. K.


Nail, Major Joseph
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. o. L. (Exeter)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Rounded, Colonel R. F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Tubbs, S. W.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Nield, Sir Herbert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wallace, Captain E.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Paget, T. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waring, Major Walter


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Pattinson, R, (Grantham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., withington)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Shakespeare, G. H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Penny, Frederick George
Sinclair, Sir A.
Windsor, Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Wise, Frederick


Phillipps, Vivian
Sparkes, H. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Pielou, D. P.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Raine, W.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sutcliffe, T.



Reynolds, W. G. W.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, C. R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Herriotts, J.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Royce, William Stapleton


Batey, Joseph Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, S.


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buckle, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burgess, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Chapple, W. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snowden, Philip


Charlcton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweltty)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Falconer, J.
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
March, S.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Weir, L. M.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Middleton, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Wignall, James


Groves, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Nichol, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hancock, John George
Paling, W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Richards, R.
Mr. Amnion and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Hastings, Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move to leave out "£5,860,000," and to insert instead thereof "£5,865,900."
I move this Amendment for the purpose of extracting from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade some other information than has been so far furnished to the House. In the Estimate before us there are items which are far
from clear, and which, in my judgment, require to be satisfactorily explained. I have had the opportunity of reading the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary the other night and contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I do not see that the items to which I have referred have been explained to the satisfaction of Members on these benches. I am far from imputing blame to the hon. Gentleman, for he has a formidable and thankless task—if I may say so—and one that is aggravated by the difficulty which exists in explaining why this Shipping Liquidation Department should continue. No information of a satisfactory character has been afforded which justifies us in accepting this Estimate. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is very little hope of recovering the amounts which he has mentioned as being due, first of all from shipowners in this country, to whom, I presume, the ex-enemy vessels and other ships at the disposal of the Ministry of Shipping were sold, or of a settlement of the accounts which have been in negotiation between the Shipping Liquidation Department and the United States Government?
In his speech I observed that he referred to a settlement with the United States Government which involves a very big figure, resulting, as he terms it, in a gross payment by this country to the United States of more than £3,000,000. As a result of my investigation into this matter, I have failed to find any detailed information which can guide me as to the desirability or otherwise of a transaction of this knid. For what purpose, might I ask, was this very large sum expended? Did we undertake transactions of a shipping character with the United States Government resulting in the purchase of a largo number of ships constructed in the yards of the States during the War, ships which, as we all know, were most unsatisfactory? By whom were these ships purchased? Were they purchased through an intermediary or directly from the Department iself? We ought to know something in regard to these ships. We ought to know whether any of the ships so purchased are still in commission, and, those that have been disposed of by the Shipping Liquidation Board, to whom have they been sold, at what price, and who were the buyers? I should like to say that, although my knowledge of
shipping affairs is not perhaps so considerable as that of the Parliamentary Secretary or those connected with his Department, it does enable me to speak with some authority on the question of the transactions with regard to the sale of ships and the purchase of ships, as between the United States Government and the Ministry of Shipping, which, in my judgment, reflects very seriously on the business capacity of those associated with the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. Now I turn to the transactions between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the shipowners in the United Kingdom. Here, I think, I shall have hon. Members with me, and in particular the ship-owning interest in this House. Now I turn to the Noble Lord's speech on this subject, in which he said:
The last item in the Estimate is for money which is owing to the Government by shipowners arid other private firms. It was anticipated that a sum of £2,850,000 would be collected from them in the current financial year and it is now thought likely that we shall succeed in collecting only £2,685,000. That does not mean that we shall not collect all the money, but we do not anticipate that we shall be able to come to a settlement during the current financial year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2198, Vol. 159.]
I want to ask what ships were sold in this connection, and were any of the ships so sold those ships which were handed over to this country and to this Department by way of reparation payments?

Viscount WOLMER: This Estimate has nothing to do with those ships at all.

Mr. SHINWELL: The Noble Lord says this Vote has nothing to do with the sale of those ships. I must confess to being very much surprised at that observation, because if hon. Members care to read the speech delivered by the Noble Lord last week in the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find sentence after sentence conclusive that in his judgment and in his mind transactions involving the sale of ships were under review. I go for proof of that to the Estimate itself. We have in the Estimate an item, "Purchasing and Building of Vessels." Purchased from whom? I think we are entitled to ask, in face of that item embodied in the Estimate, the question which I have just put to the Noble Lord. At all events, the purpose of the Shipping Liquidation Department was to liquidate the monetary and financial transactions of the Ministry of
Shipping, and surely there must be transactions between that Department and those with whom agreements were effected. Therefore I submit that my reference to the sale of ships and to the firms to whom ships were sold is relevant to this Estimate.
I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade yesterday in which I asked for information respecting the sale of ships, to whom they were sold, the prices received and other relevant questions. The Noble Lord did not give me the information I asked for, but he informed the House and myself that he would at his own discretion provide such information as seemed to him to be expedient. There must be some inexplicable and u n explainable reason why the President of the Board of Trade and the Department with which he is connected are not anxious to divulge the names of those firms who purchased the ships from his Department, and we can obtain no information at all, however persistent we may be in our requests.
The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) has directed my attention to other items which seem to bear out my contention that the purchase and disposal of vessels is part of the work of this Department. I pass from that in the hope that my observations will be replied to by the Noble Lord. The quotation which I have made from the Noble Lord's speech refers to money which is owing to the Government by shipowners and other private firms. That is precisely the point upon which I am endeavouring to get some information. Who are the private firms who owe money to the Government? It has been stated outside this House that such firms as the White Star Line, and, if I mistake not, the Cunard Line and other large companies have in their possession enemy vessels which have not been fully paid for so far as the Noble Lord's Department is concerned. Either those statements are true or untrue. I repeat that this is merely information which has been furnished to me, and perhaps the Noble Lord will say a word or two in that connection. Now I come to what is undoubtedly a relevant consideration with regard to this Estimate. A large number of ships were handed over to the Government by way of reparation payments. These ships were sent to the various harbours of the United Kingdom,
to the Thames, the Bristol Channel, the Mersey and the Clyde, many of them being quartered in Gairloch.

Viscount WOLMER: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in this Vote concerning the disposal of reparation ships.

Mr. SPEAKER: I found myself in a little difficulty in regard to this matter, but, on examining the Estimates more closely, I think what the Noble Lord has said is the case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is one item marked "Purchase of Vessels," and a subsequent item, "Appropriations-in-Aid." They amount to nearly £3,000,000, and obviously these items are for the sale of something or other. If you turn to the main Estimate it will be seen that the reduction in the anticipated Appropriations-in-Aid is due to the retardation of the rate of selection of the sums due. Therefore we must assume that they are for services rendered or goods sold in connection with shipping liquidation. What else can that be but the sale of ships? Can the Noble Lord explain this item?

Viscount WOLMER: I should like to give the information as to what it deals with. What I say at the moment is that it does not deal with the sale of reparation ships.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that the sale of reparation ships is not open for discussion at this point. It arises on the main Estimates, and not on this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. SHINWELL: I contend that in submitting Estimates a little more clarity might be observed so that hon. Members can see what Vote is under review. I pass on now to what I think is a perfectly relevant consideration. A large number of ships were constructed by the Ministry of Shipping, and a great many were purchased by that Ministry from the United States Shipbuilding Yard. Many of them were not disposed of at the Armistice, and I understand—perhaps the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that many of these are still in possession of the Shipping Liquidation Department. At any rate, the financial transactions are still within the scope of the Noble Lord's Department, and I want information with regard to the expense involved in laying up such vessels. I want to know
whether expenditure in this connection might not have been curtailed by adopting such methods of laying up as would have been just as effective, but involving much less expense. I think information with regard to that point might prove valuable to the House, and it would enable hon. Members to form some opinion of the business capacity of those employed in the Noble Lord's Department.
I also want to put another point. Many of the ships which have been disposed of were constructed during the War, standard ships they were called, and they have been sold at certain prices, but it is rumoured that many of those vessels were disposed of at rock-bottom prices at a time when the market showed that the average price of shipbuilding construction was £30 per ton, while the price obtained in the market was only about £3 per ton. That is a point which is extremely important, because obviously, if the Department disposed of its ships at £3 per ton, or a smaller approximate price, it was obviously unfair to the British shipbuilding yards, and to a very large extent aggravated the unemployment prevalent in the country. I am rather taken from the main considerations in my mind by the ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given, with regard to reparation ships, which I understand arise on the main Estimates. I shall content myself with submitting the considerations which I have put forward in the hope that a more satisfactory explanation will be furnished.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I call attention to the original Vote in the Estimates for the Civil Service. Under unclassified services the Appropriations-in-Aid include ex-enemy and other vessels, and the miscellaneous sale of ships, tonnage, etc. Surely it would be within the bounds of order to discuss these ships?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is wrong in thinking that the whole of the subjects under an original Estimate are necessarily carried forward in a Supplementary Estimate, because that is not so. Although the heading must be the same in the Supplementary Vote, we are now dealing only with the items for which money is asked, and it is clear
that there is no money represented in the Supplementary Vote dealing with the sale of reparation ships.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. I do not propose to pursue the matter, but I would like to direct attention to the speech of the Noble Lord in which he referred to an item of £250,000, prize money in respect of ships condemned in the Prize Courts during the War. That obviously related to ex-enemy vessels, and if the reference was relevant in the speech of the Noble Lord, surely it is equally relevant in my case?

Viscount WOLMER: It had nothing to do with the sale of vessels.

Mr. JOWETT: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Viscount WOLMER: When introducing this Supplementary Estimate the other night I dealt with the subject rather exhaustively, as I thought, and I do not need to make any further remarks upon it at this stage, beyond replying to those points on which information has been asked. I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member who has spoken in all the points he has raised, but I ask him to take my assurance that a great many of the matters on which he spoke dealt with items which are not raised in this Vote at all. I should therefore be out of order if I tried to argue with him on the merits of the purchase of American ships by this country, as no part of the cost of purchasing those ships falls in this Supplementary Estimate. The £3,100,000 which we have had to pay to the American Government was entirely for earnings by American vessels for goods carried to this country, goods purchased by this country in America and shipped to this country in American vessels during the War. I told the House last week that another £100,000 was provided for under an exactly similar arrangement with the Canadian Government. My hon. Friend asked for information with regard to the sale of ships. I cannot follow him in detail there, because the matter does not really arise on this Vote, but I should like to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that they have no objection to giving full details of these sales. The hon. Member asked, supposing the Appropriations-in-Aid did not refer to the
sale of ships, what did they refer to? The answer is very simple. They refer to freightage which was earned by Government-owned ships during the War. They were part of the earnings of the Ministry of Shipping.

Mr. SHINWELL: But the item Appropriations-in-Aid includes an item for the sale of ships.

Viscount WOLMER: That is true of the original Estimate, but it is not true of the Supplementary Estimate. The same headings have to be used for Treasury purposes and for reference in this House, but it is not in respect of those transactions that there is any anticipated addition this year. I think I have answered all the questions of the hon. Member which were relevant to the Vote.

Mr. SEXTON: I must confess I find it somewhat difficult to follow the discussion on this question owing to the ruling that the question of reparation ships cannot be discussed. There is this peculiar circumstance, that for "running expenses and repair of ex-enemy and other vessels" and "outstanding liabilities in respect of requisitioned and other vessels" there is an item here. Now the running expenses and repairs of ex-enemy and other ships indicates that those ships are not sold and I am very much concerned to know where they are now and what they are doing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know if the hon. Member was in the House when I tried to explain just now that, for the purpose of accurate bookkeeping, it is always necessary in a Supplementary Estimate—however small the sum with which we are dealing, even if it be only one single item in a sub-head of the original Estimate—that the whole sub-heads should be repeated. But that does not entitle hon. Members to refer to those sub-heads, unless money is actually asked from the House in respect of them.

Mr. SEXTON: I must confess, looking at the explanation of this particular sub-head, I am inclined to think that the Board of Trade is rather an understudy of the "Flying Dutchman." They do not know where the ships are themselves, and it appears to me, from what I read here—of course, I am not a Cabinet Minister or even an Under-Secretary that the whole thing is drifting into the doldrums. Lower down we find an item,
"Purchasing and building of vessels." If we have not sold the enemy ships, why has it been necessary to purchase other ships at an expenditure of £123,000? I really should like to get some information on this question. The original Estimate for 1922–23 for Shipping Liquidation is £2,885,900. An additional sum is now asked for of £5,866,000. I am at a loss to understand why, if we have taken over ex-enemy ships and paid money for repairing them, we have spent £423,000 on the purchase and building of other vessels. If these ships are in use, why should there be any liquidation? I should like to know where we are on this question. I am very anxious to help the Board of Trade. As a humble representative of part of the shipping trade, I feel anxious to do all I can to assist the Department, but surely we are entitled to some explanation of what appears on this Paper before we can conscientiously give a vote. It is unfortunate that no explanation is given on the Estimate. We have only the bare headings and the amounts. It appears to me that the Noble Lord is sailing very close to the wind, and that his weather hearing is very dangerously shaken.

Mr. R. MURRAY: I have been following very closely the discussion with regard to this Estimate. We on these benches are taking a very keen interest in these Votes. The other evening it was pointed out to us that we had permitted a number of Votes to go through without due inquiry. That appealed to me so strongly that I have made a big effort to understand this Estimate, and to know what it is we are asked to vote money for tonight. After the Noble Lord's explanation I feel considerable difficulty in understanding the position, and I certainly am still not conscious of the real reasons upon which this new claim is based. It is suggested that the item for the repairs of ex-enemy ships is part of the original Estimate, but surely some portion of this £5,000,000 odd now asked for must arise in connection with the ex-enemy ships. I am anxious as a new Member, who is keen to do his duty, to ascertain the precise grounds upon which we are asked to sanction such an immense additional amount of expenditure. The original Estimate amounted to £2,800,000. This new demand brings the total up to £8,750,000 in round figures and we have
had no real explanation given us of the reasons for requiring the additional £6,000,000. It is all very well to tell us that the Government has had to face certain contingencies and that it is in duty bound to find this money, but we on these benches are as much custodians of the public purse as those sitting on the benches opposite, and we have a right to know on what grounds we are asked to sanction the payment of this additional sum. We think, in regard to the sale of ships which were in the hands of the Government, whether standard ships or ex-enemy ships, that it was a gamble based on the hideous fallacy that the rewards and profits are for the few and the payments only for the many. We feel that those ships were sold without due regard and care, and if we lightly and easily agree to the payment of this amount, we are condoning that stupidity and that wrong, and making it possible for it to be continued in the future. We want to feel that in these matters there will be no want of care, and no gambling with the nation's money. I am sure that I speak, not only for hon. Members on this side of the House, but for the very few faithful souls who have remained on the other side, when I say that not one of us has been satisfied that the explanation of the Noble Lord has in any way touched the point on which we seek information. We want to have these points cleared up in a way in which they have not been cleared up, and if the Noble Lord will make an effort to make it clear to us why this £5,000,000 is asked for now, he will set an example which we sincerely hope the other Departments will follow, so that we shall not be left in this state of mystification, about which the only thing that is clear is that the country has to pay an additional £5,000,000 without any explanation as to why it is wanted.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I want to elicit some information with regard to Item J.— Purchase and Building of Vessels. From inquiries which I have made, I understand that this item has some connection with the national shipyards, and has also some connection with the housing of operatives at the national shipyards.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): It has nothing to with housing.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have been rather diligently looking up the necessary information, and if I have made a mistake it is strange to me. I read here:
Outstanding liabilities in respect of national shipyard scheme, including housing and shipyard extension scheme.
Has it nothing to do with that?

Viscount WOLMER: This Supplementary Estimate has not.

Mr. HENDERSON: Is the purpose of these Estimates to mystify the Members of the House? Are we not to get information that will make it possible for us to follow a real discussion of the Estimates which have been presented?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I might intervene for a moment to explain that. Mr. Speaker has already stated, with regard to this Estimate, after my Noble Friend had explained to what it relates, that it is necessary for accounting purposes to follow the Sub-head which appears in the original Estimate, but that that does not mean that every item referred to in the Sub-head is dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate. My Noble Friend has explained in detail what are the particular items dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is what he has not done. If we had had from the Noble Lord an explanation in detail of what this Estimate is for, we should not be making the mistake of referring to the original Estimate and assuming that the Supplementary Estimate deals with the whole of the original Estimate. We have had no such explanation.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that I gave a most detailed explanation when I introduced the Estimate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was at 2 o'clock in the morning!

Mr. HENDERSON: I want to find out if the increased sum asked for represents £358,000 above the original Estimate for the same item. We are entitled to that information. It is not fair for the Government to come forward with a demand like this and expect us to agree to it without some proper information. The Government have to account for £358,000. What does it mean?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am almost sorry that the Noble Lord made his speech, which, if I may say so, was a very admirable speech, the other night, because we should have so much enjoyed it to-night, when there would be hon. Members present to listen to it, instead of his having to make it to empty benches. The Noble Lord will realise that, in a new House of Commons, it is essential that these Votes should be explained to Members, even when they are the Opposition. I defy any Member of Parliament, whether he be an old or a new Member, to read this Estimate through and have any but the very foggiest idea of what it is all about. All that we know at the end—and I speak for myself as much as for any other Member—is that somehow or other £5,000,000 is wanted from the taxpayers of this country. I do think, therefore, that before we vote this £5,000,000, we ought, even if it involves a repetition of the Noble Lord's speech the other day, to have some sort of explanation as to why this £5,000,000 more is wanted.
Apart altogether from that, and even if we had all heard that speech and could remember it now, the Noble Lord has not dealt quite fairly by the House in giving no sort of reply to the question which I asked him on that occasion, and that was, how much longer is this liquidation going on—whether it is to become a hardy annual, or whether we are to have some time limit set, after which we should be dear of the Shipping Department and the shipping liquidation. The tendency of all these Departments is, somehow or other, to perpetuate themselves—to postpone the payment of instalments or the payment of their own just debts. I do hope that the Noble Lord, in this new Government, which is pledged to economy at all costs, will see that he himself and his Department commit hari-kari at the earliest possible moment. The other criticism which was put forward the other night, and to which we have had no reply, was with reference to the astounding mistakes made about the settlement with America. We asked why it was that, when they must have known that the payment of that sum to America would come into this financial year instead of next, they did not make the necessary correction for the Estimate which we are considering now. Why is it that now we have to vote £3,100,000 more, when it
must have been known long before this Estimate was put before the House and adopted by the House?

Viscount WOLMER: In response to what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, I must thank him for the kind remarks that he made about my speech when I introduced this Estimate, although I am afraid he does not appear to remember very much of it. I notice that he has a much better recollection of his own speech, which was also a very interesting one on that occasion. If hon. Members who were not able to be present on the previous occasion, and who now take such a keen interest in the Estimate, would do me the honour of reading my speech, they would save a good deal of Parliamentary time, but I will summarise very shortly, because I do not want to take up the time of the House, what I said on that occasion. I pointed out that this was merely a settlement of old accounts, and that the whole necessity for the Supplementary Estimate arises from the fact that certain items have come into this financial year in the liquidation which we expected to come either into the last financial year or into the next. Not a single penny of it is for new expenditure. It is merely clearing up the vast accounts of the Ministry of Shipping There have been 114,000 accounts already settled, and the work is nearly complete Hon. Members will find that I went into all these items in the greatest detail when I introduced this Estimate. Let me say, for instance, with regard to Item J, to which reference has been made, that it is merely the final settlement in respect of the construction of vessels in national shipyards—a matter on which there were negotiations and, I think, arbitration, and there was some dispute as to what the final amount to be paid should be. It was not paid in the last financial year, and consequently the money voted for it in the last financial year had to be surrendered to the Treasury, and has to be re-voted in this financial year. If money which has been voted by Parliament in one financial year is not spent in that year, it has to be surrendered to the Treasury, and, when the expenditure has to be met, the Government have to come to Parliament again for a re-vote. That is simply what has happened on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Member asked a number of questions, but I will
not trouble the House by repeating the answers that I gave to him on the previous occasion. I will merely say that it is impossible to know absolutely when the Government will have to meet certain liabilities in regard to shipping expenditure during the War, and whether it will be able to collect certain assets, because a great many of these items are the subject of litigation or negotiation or arbitration. The process of liquidation is being pursued as rapidly as possible. The care with which these accounts have been examined by the Shipping Liquidation Department has already saved the country over £4,000,000 above the cost of the Department, and when the Geddes Committee came to examine the Department, they said the cost of administration in their opinion was small in comparison with the sums involved, and they made no recommendation in regard to a reduction of staff there.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am sure we are entitled to all the information that can possibly be given on such a Supplementary Estimate as this, and the difficulty of understanding things in the small hours of the morning is not very helpful to us or to you, Sir, either. No doubt the explanations of the representative of the Ministry are made with every desire to give information, but they are given at the wrong time. Altogether the very small amount of information conveyed to us makes us wonder what it all means. I am wondering how much of this money under Item J has been spent in the building of the vessels in the experimental process at Chepstow, for instance. If this £358,000–I do not know where the vessels were built, because it does not tell us—is part of the woeful experiment of the people who are fit to govern, when we look at the terrible waste of money at Chepstow and Beachley we do not wonder that there are millions more required to make up the wastage and the loss. However, there was such reckless extravagance during the War period in the purchase and building of vessels and all the experiments that were entered upon that we are not very much surprised at this Supplementary Estimate of nearly £6,000,000. However, it is refreshing to us to see that all the right hon. Gentlemen who have been preaching about economy and trying to save expenditure are now in their
places trying to defend the expenditure that is before us. I should like to know if any of the money included in Item J went towards the building of the ships which are now being sold to a private company. I know the Government has capital invested in it.

Viscount WOLMER: I have had inquiries made and not a single penny of this money was spent at Chepstow or had anything to do with Chepstow.

Mr. HENDERSON: You referred to a national shipyard. Which one?

Viscount WOLMER: It is not in regard to national shipyards, it is in regard to ships. If I said national shipyards, it was a slip. It was in regard to the payment for ships built by the Government, I think in the national shipyards. This is the final settlement in respect of those vessels which were built by the Government during the War.

Mr. PALING: I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer when referring to the last Estimate mentioned that he was in some office, I believe, about five years before he got a conception of these things, and I am beginning to wonder, if we are given these Estimates with no more detail than is here before us, whether some of us will not be here for five years before we get to know. It is our intention by these questions to get to know as soon as possible, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it in that spirit. It appears to me that the difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate is large. I should like to know if it is the custom of the Government to make Estimates of this description and then have to revise them with a large increase. Item J is increased nearly seven times. I should like to ask if that is usual in regard to these Estimates. In another case the Government, evidently expecting something coming in, overestimated again. Is that the custom of the Government? Would the Government find it equally possible to increase the Estimate they have given for the unemployed seven times as they have in regard to Item J?

Question put, "That '£5,866,000' stand part of the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 198: Noes, 131.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Furness, G. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Nield, Sir Herbert


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W,
Gilbert, James Daniel
Paget, T. G,


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Banks, Mitchell
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Becker, Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Pielou, D. P.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hancock, John George
Raine, W,


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harrison, F. C.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell, William (Bolton)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Houfton, John Plowright
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hume, G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Churchman, sir Arthur
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sparkes, H. W.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sutcliffe, T.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cope, Major William
Kenyon, Barnet
Sykes, Major-Gen. sir Frederick H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lamb, J. Q.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tubbs, S. W.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Lorden, John William
Wallace, Captain E.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lorimer, H, D.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel) Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Waring, Major Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lougher, L,
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Windsor, Viscount


Edge, Captain Sir William
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Earl


Ednam, Viscount
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Worsfold, T. Cato


Flanagan, W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morris, Harold



Forestier-Walker, L.
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nall, Major Joseph
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buckle, J.
Duncan, C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Burgess, S.
Dunnico, H.


Attlee, C. R.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Barnes, A.
Cairns, John
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.
Fairbairn, R. R.


Bonwick, A.
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Foot, Isaac


Broad, F. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Bromfield, William
Collison, Levi
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Brotherton, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Greenall, T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duffy, T. Gavan
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)




Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
M'Entee, V. L.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Groves, T.
McLaren, Andrew
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Grundy, T. W.
March, S.
Snell, Harry


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Harney, E. A.
Middleton, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harris, Percy A.
Morel, E. D.
Sullivan, J.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Hastings, Patrick
Muir, John W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Murnin, H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Herriotts, J.
Nichol, Robert
Warne, G. H.


Hillary, A. E.
O'Grady, Captain James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hinds, John
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Weir, L. M.


Hogge, James Myles
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Welsh, J. C.


Irving, Dan
Phillipps, Vivian
Westwood, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.
Wignall, James


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lansbury, George
Royce, William Stapleton
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.



Leach, W.
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee, F.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Amnion.


Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 130.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[8.44 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Harvey, Major S. E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cope, Major William
Hawke, John Anthony


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com Frederick W.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Baird, Rt. Hen. Sir John Lawrence
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Darbishire, C. W.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Banks, Mitchell
Davidson, J.C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Becker, Harry
Dawson, Sir Philip
Houlton, John Plowright


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Edge, Captain Sir William
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ednam, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A.


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hume, G. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Blundell, F. N.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Flanagan, W. H.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, G. W. H, (Stoke Newington)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Furness, G. J.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Bruton, Sir James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kenyon, Barnet


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lamb, J. Q.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cassels, J. D.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lloyd Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lorden, John William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lorimer, H. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Lougher, L.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Clayton, G. C.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Lumley, L. R


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Halstead, Major D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hancock, John George
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Makins, Brigadier-General H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Sutcliffe, T.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Morris, Harold
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Murchison, C. K.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Tubbs, S. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Rutherford, sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain E.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Nield, Sir Herbert
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Waring, Major Walter


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Paget, T. G.
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Windsor, Viscount


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton, Earl


Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Sinclair, Sir A.
Wise, Frederick


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Skelton, A. N.
Wolmer, Viscount


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F, L. (Ripon)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sparkes, H. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Pielou, D. P.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Maine, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Remer, J. R.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Attlee, c R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richards, R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Hinds, John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, I. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton


Brotherton, J.
Irving, Dan
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cairns, John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John B.
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collison, Levi
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
McLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Fairbairn, R. R.
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Greenall, T.
Middleton, G
Weir, L. M.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wignall, James


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Norman ton)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Percy A.
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Amnion.


Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am sorry that we are compelled to take action of this kind,
but hon. Members who have preached economy all over the country only try to practise it when claims are made on behalf of the unemployed. In this case we have an Estimate of £2,340,266, and there is a deficit of £933,841. We cannot agree to this Vote unless it is made
clearer than it has been. Why an Estimate should be so far short of the money spent it is difficult to know. I notice on page 7 that there is an item of £20,000 for further provision required owing to expenditure being greater than was originally expected, and there is a sum of £470 included in respect of extra statutory gratuity in respect to an Inspector-General in addition to £4,000 provided in the original Estimate. Who got that £4,000, and why is it necessary to give an extra £470? It may be that, following the principle that the money had to be spent, he might as well get it as anybody else. But we think that money has been spent lavishly and recklessly and we would like hon. Members opposite to take this a little move seriously.
I know that for some time they will be able to save their faces in the country by blaming everything on the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But that will only last for a time. Next year they will be face to face with their own handiwork, and it is just as well for them to realise that if they want £2,000,000 they should spend within that amount, and should not come before the House and ask for another £2,000,000 without giving sufficient explanation. I do not think that anything which can be said can justify some of the increases which we have here. You have sums advanced for the Royal Irish Constabulary, for the conveyance of prisoners prior to committal, which sums could not be recovered from the county councils of Southern Ireland. I noticed in the Debate earlier that the Irish people had come together with their minds made up that the British taxpayer was to meet all the claims. That probably also maybe the Government explanation in connection with this extravagance, but if that be so, it is just as well to think it over. You have on page 6 arms, ammunition and accoutrements, provision to meet claims which were not furnished by the 31st March, a small sum of £22,000. Members on this side of the House have not been used to spending money in millions, and our training probably has made us more careful in dealing with money than are hon. Members who have never worked in the mines for 30s. a week. I notice that in the Paper explaining the Estimates it is stated that part of the deficit has to
be met because it was expected that the force would be disbanded on 31st March, but that it continued to 31st August. It happens that I was a miner before coming to this House, and I look back to the time when the Government decontrolled the mines in violation of the recommendation of Mr. Justice Sankey which the Government had previously accepted.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): How does the hon. Member connect that subject with the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am using it as an illustration. If you rule it out of order I must accept the ruling. It is unfortunate for me that the Government deliberately broke their pledge to the mining community.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a reference to a controversial statement which is not relevant to the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am sorry if you take up that position. The Force was not disbanded on 31st March, and whether it was maintained till 31st August or not the expense was kept up to the later date. The sum involved was roughly £1,000,000, and, seeing that the Government have so much difficulty in getting money for houses, for pensions, for ex-service men and for the unemployed, they ought to have been more careful.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We oppose this Vote, in order to protest against the Government's action towards the unemployed. I look at the Paper with which Members have been supplied and I find that the same Government which has be haved so shamefully to the unemployed is prepared cooly and calmly, with a brass face, to ask us who are the representatives of the unemployed outside—they are starving at the moment, and I saw quite a number of them to-night abused in the Lobby of the House—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Royal Irish Constabulary has nothing to do with that subject.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know perfectly well that I shall have great difficulty in keeping to the subject matter of the
Resolution, the reason being that where the heart is, the foot or tongue is apt to wander, and my heart and life are with the unemployed. Let me turn to the subject under discussion. I come from the Clyde and represent Dumbarton. That is to say, I represent a great shipbuilding and engineering centre, where we have been told time and again by the learned fraternity who now sit on the Government benches that they had all the brains, and that they only were fit to govern. Yet that same team produced this paper, which proves conclusively to the ordinary man in the street that they are not fit to govern, for in a very small part of an Estimate they are "out" in their calculations by £1,000,000. Of course, this is not the first time that the lords and earls and dukes of Britain, who have at their backs the brains, which they buy, have made a great mistake. If my memory serves me right—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All mankind must occasionally make mistakes, but I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is involved in the Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Royal Irish Constabulary is the item which I am trying to discuss. I told you at the outset that I would not take you at a disadvantage. I told you that I was using this only as a means to an end, to protest against the brass-faced men who abandoned my class in the manner they have done. Now to the Irish Constabulary. Time and again we have put forward legitimate claims. They did not amount to £1,000,000, to be handed to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which here includes the Dublin Metropolitan Police. We, coming as we do from Scotland, the land of the brave and free, understood that the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force was like the civil police force in Glasgow and that the expense would be met by the civil authorities. If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will consult this Paper, you will find that the Front Bench gentlemen have it down here that we are to support the Metropolitan Police in Dublin. I want to know what part of that expense has to be met or has been met by the civil authorities of Dublin? I think that is getting back to the ques-
tion of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I would like also to know from you, Sir, if there is any power in your hands to make hon. and right hon. and right hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and Noble Lords attend here on those benches?` Is there no power which can command them, instead of dining and wining to sit on those benches?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment, or I shall have to direct him to resume his seat.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Of course, Sir, I quite expected that. Nevertheless there are one or two suggestions which I might make to the British Government—to those who are in power at the moment, though I hope it will not be very long until they are out of power. This relates to what is called the Royal Irish Constabulary. With your kind attention, Sir, I would say that I think the Government ought to be here at the moment to hear what we have to say regarding the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am doing my very utmost to keep in strict line with the constitution of Great Britain, France and Ireland at the moment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has disregarded my warning, and I must direct him to resume his seat.

Mr. AMNION: There are a few points which I wish to put before the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate before he replies. I am sure he will appreciate, and you also, Sir, the difficulties of new Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) in endeavouring to put their point of view before the House on a subject of this sort. Probably they are influenced by the fact that it is a new experience for them and that they have never before handled Estimates of the kind which we have to consider. I understand that the increase in this Estimate arises mainly because a force which it was intended to disband on 31st March, was kept in being until 31st August. That being so, I am at a loss to understand whether the arms and ammunitions dealt with in Item E 1 were supplied after the 31st March to enable the Royal Irish Constabulary to carry on, or whether this material was actually supplied prior to the 31st March, and an inaccurate estimate made of the cost which had to be
supplemented subsequently. I notice also in Item H 1 there are charges for postal services, including telegraphs and telephones. I am not sure whether up to the 31st March that charge was borne on the Post Office establishment, or whether it is an entirely new Vote dealing with the period from 31st March on to 31st August. If so, it might be useful if we had some comparative figures showing what the Post Office was allowed as compared with what we are now asked to vote directly. That would be interesting, as showing whether Estimates remain the same when a civil establishment has got to carry them, as compared with those cases in which they are carried on some other arm of the Government service. There is an item for compensation for damage or injury amounting to £14,000. Did this damage arise between 31st March and 31st August? Are we to understand that there was an increase in cases of arson, and perhaps attacks on life and property, after it had been decided to disband this force, or was it, again, because there was a failure to estimate with any degree of accuracy what was likely to be charged?
Under Item I 3 I observe compensation for steamship requisition amounting to £1,511. By whom was this steamship requisitioned? Was it by forces in arms against this Government or the Provisional Government, or was it by the Crown for some purpose such as transporting Royal Irish Constabulary from one point to another? Under I 5 provision is made to meet losses arising mainly from sums advanced by the Royal Irish Constabulary for the conveyance of prisoners prior to committal, which sums could not be recovered from the county councils of Southern Ireland, and there is also an item for losses of cash in ambushes, etc. Still keeping in mind the fact that the whole of this Estimate has to do with the continuance in being of the Royal Irish Constabulary between March and August, are we to understand that this cost of £11,500 for the conveyance of prisoners and loss of cash was all entailed during those six months? These items should be made clear to us before we decide whether we can support the hon. and gallant Member in this Estimate. For pensions and gratuities a sum of £20,000 is indicated. How does that arise, and does it arise between March
and August? Are we to understand that a great number of people became entitled to sums during these six months to the tune of £20,000, or is it another case of inaccurately estimated charges which arose prior to the 31st March. It is not quite fair to suggest that all these increases are due to the maintenance in being of the Royal Irish Constabulary during those months, and we should know clearly if these are being carried forward from the period prior to the 31st March, instead of having them put to us as something entirely new. Did the revenue go on from 31st March to the 31st August, and if not, has all this expense been thrown on to us as an extra charge over and above anything we have claimed from Ireland in respect of the claims now being presented to us.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) such information as I have at my disposal on the point he has raised. Before doing so, may I say, in reply to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan), that nobody regrets more than I do having to present this Supplementary Estimate. One of the first things which met me when I went for the first time into the Government of this country three weeks last Saturday was to be presented with these accounts, which I think in all cases were money which had been spent on the authority of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and as there is no Chief Secretary now, I am informed that it is my duty to represent him in the winding-up of the Irish Office. I sincerely hope that this is the last Supplementary Estimate, but I am net quite sure.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell was wrong in gathering from the explanations given that the items from E to J are to do with the carrying on of the Royal Irish Constabulary from 31st March to 31st August last. The only three items that go together are the first three, Pay, Allowances, and Subsistence Allowances, owing to the fact that the Provisional Government were not in a position on the 1st April last to take over from the Royal Irish Constabulary various barracks up and down the country, or the Constabulary Depots at Phoenix Park, or the large Constabulary Camp and Workshop at Gormanstown. They had only been in
existence since the Treaty, signed the previous December, and by the 31st March we had hoped they would have Free State buildings ready to take over from the Royal Irish Constabulary. Unfortunately, they were not ready, and until they were ready and gradually took over these various depots during the course of the summer it was necessary to keep the Royal Irish Constabulary on longer than was originally intended. In the North of Ireland the date was the 31st May, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary took over then. The remaining items are different, and I will deal with the questions put to me by the hon. Member seriatim. In regard to E.1, Arms, Ammunition, and Accoutrements, the provision on this account for the year 1921 was no less than £351,000. No provision was made when this year's Estimate was framed, but claims have now been received from the War Office, the Air Ministry, and other Departments in respect of arms and ammunition supplied by them in the earlier period, 1920–21. No fresh expenditure has been made under this head in the current financial year.

Mr. AMNION: There was no previous Estimate on this account?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. These are bills that have come in from the Departments in respect of arms and ammunition not paid for in 1920–21. The next question was in regard to the Post Office. The arrangement was this, that before 31st March this year the Royal Irish Constabulary, on official duties, used the Post Office free, without paying for stamps, and so on, the same as every Government Department in this country.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. Gentle-mar, sure the police use the Post Office free in this country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On official correspondence the police have a considerable amount of free postage, but not, of course, in their private affairs.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of that?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am talking of the Metropolitan Police, and the Royal Irish Constabulary were a central force, directly under the Central Government. There were no local police forces, except in Dublin, and there is nothing in this
Supplementary Estimate whatever for Dublin Metropolitan Police. That is only put in at the top, because it was part of the heading under which all these Votes have to be covered. On the 1st April this year, the Post Office was handed over to the Provisional Government, and therefore ever since the remnant of the Royal Irish Constabulary had to pay, whereas they did not have to pay before.

Mr. AMNION: Are we to understand then that actually there was no revenue from the Post Office and that this is now thrown on to the Imperial Exchequer?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes; I think I can explain it. Before the 1st April last the Irish Post Office was part of the Imperial Post Office; after the 1st April it was handed over to the Provisional Government. Here were Imperial servants, the Royal Irish Constabulary, paid by this House, carrying on in Ireland for a few months more. Therefore they had to begin to do what they had not done before, namely, to pay for their postage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were they continuing there at the request of the Provisional Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then why should not the Provisional Government pay?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They had not got the men to take over.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But they might have paid the postage.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the conditions in Ireland were such that it was absolutely impossible to expect anything of that kind.

Mr. F. GRAY: Were there any Free State police in the country when the Royal Irish Constabulary were disbanded?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They certainly have got their own police forces now.

Mr. GRAY: They have now, but had they then?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Very few, and they gradually took over as they increased their police. As a matter of fact, from the date of the Treaty they did begin to establish police and to take over barracks
up and down the country, and they gradually assumed the responsibility for law and order in the 26 counties. These are all accounts for that interim period.

Mr. GRAY: Were they relieved from that date?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was a gradual process. We had hoped it would be completed between the 6th December, 1921, when the Treaty was signed, and the 31st March this year, but, as a matter of fact, it was not completed till the 31st August, hence the larger part of this Supplementary Estimate. Let me get on to the specific questions put about Damage and Injury, Item I. The £1,000 put in the original Estimate was, confessedly, what is called a Token Vote. This Token Vote was put down because it was absolutely impossible to estimate what claims would be required to be settled or the amount of money involved. As a matter of fact, we feared that considerably larger number of claims might be made under that head, but, luckily, those claims, which cover a period of 18 months up to August of this year, have only come to £15,000. They are largely claims in respect of personal injuries sustained in collision with police vehicles, or of damage to vehicles, cattle, and small items of that kind. That explains the reason why the Token Vote has not had to be very largely increased. The next question, which the hon. Member for Camberwell asked, was with regard to the Compensation for Steamship Requisitioned. I admit that there is a certain element of humour in this particular case. This was a small steamer, called the "John Somers," which was requisitioned by the Royal Irish Constabulary from Jeremiah Collins, of Cork, on 6th June, 1921. The steamer made journeys for the police backward and forward from Queenstown to Cork. When the ship was handed back to him, on the 3rd October, 1921, Captain Collins put in a very large claim, because apparently the original contract for this vessel was not very carefully worded. He put in a claim for £3,608 10s. 4d., made up of hiring, and a large sum for reconditioning. Ever since then, until quite recently, the Treasury
have, through the Chief Crown Solicitor, been endeavouring to negotiate for a settlement of Mr. Jeremiah Collins' claim, with considerable difficulty. At last they have got him to accept, instead of his claim, the sum of £1,500, plus ten guineas cost. That explains why this item is £1,511. The next item of" £400, extra-Statutory Grants to Dependents of Deceased Constabulary, deals with three particular constables. There was Constable Duffy, who was accidentally shot by a member of another party of police who mistook him for a rebel, on the 19th August, 1920. All these cases go back to 1920, except one, which is in April, 1921. My hon. Friend asked about losses. I remember, when I was a free Member, that I always objected to the heading of Losses in any Supplementary Estimate. The main item is for the debts due by county councils for the conveyance of prisoners and the expenses in connection with food and drugs. Responsibility for the conveyance of Sinn Fein prisoners taken during the troubles in Ireland fell statutorily on the Irish county councils. As a good many of the Irish county councils were not in sympathy with the people who were opposing the police than with those who were supporting the police, it was found absolutely impossible to recover from them the sums for this purpose. Therefore they must be charged under the heading of Losses.

Mr. AMNION: Spread over what period?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Spread over the whole of the year 1921–22. There is another small item, "Contingencies," including provision for possible deficiencies which may be shown on wind-up of amalgamated county accounts. That is practically, as far as I can make out, the only Estimate here, and it is money so far accounted for by merely winding-up and finishing. One hopes that possible deficiencies in winding-up will not be as bad as it was feared.

Mr. AMNION: Will that be taken as final?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We hope so. The next question was that of Pensions and Gratuities. This, confessedly, in the main, was a faulty Estimate. There is a very large sum of money involved, how-
ever, and the difference of £20,000 on a total of £2,000,000, considering the conditions under which the Constabulary in Ireland were working, was not a very serious one in estimating the pensions which would be required in connection with the winding-up of the Royal Irish Constabulary. One item, however, which is controversial, has been put in, so that we may make a perfectly clean breast of it, namely, the extra pension of £470 granted to Sir Joseph Byrne, the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who terminated his appointment on 7th March, 1920. Under this contract as Inspector-General, he was entitled to full pay until found another post. Hon. Members will remember that there was a suggestion of his going to Scotland Yard, which did not materialise. He has since become Governor of Seychelles, and this £470 is required to make up the amount due to him under his contract with the Treasury during that interval.
With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, that is shown, of course, as an accounting item. I hope that the deficiency of these Appropriations-in-Aid may not be as much as is put down in this Vote, but for technical reasons we have to show it. Legal proceedings are now going on, and we hope that that sum will be actually saved and not required to be spent. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised on this Estimate. I apologise for keeping the House so long. I had not an opportunity of giving an explanation, to the best of my ability, in Committee, owing to the kindness of the Opposition in not moving on that Stage.

Mr. HASTINGS: I have not the slightest intention of unnecessarily delaying the House by asking questions on matters which do not seem to be relevant to the subject before us. I really have, however, a desire to get some information upon these accounts, and a great many hon. Members on these benches are in a similar position. I approach these accounts in complete ignorance of the way in which they are usually put before the House. I will assume, and no doubt rightly, that this is the ordinary manner, and the only information which hon. Members can get when they seek an opportunity of questioning. I say, without hesitation, that personally I am
shocked by the method of presenting accounts to the House, if this is the only method. I propose, with the permission of the House, to quote as an example one or two of the things which seem to me to be an amazing way of treating hon. Members who really desire to get some information on the matters in hand. I am told, and I accept it for the moment as being correct, because it comes from a source which I certainly would accept, that these accounts were framed in March of last year. Just let us examine four of them to see what a remarkable state of affairs they seem to disclose.
First, I would call attention to Items F and H. They seem to me to bear a very close analogy to the position of B, which is pay. If I look at F, I find that the rent of barracks, for which apparently our whole Estimate is required for the purposes of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was estimated in March of this year at £11,450. Now, according to these accounts, they have increased. There is a deficit of £18,350, which, from a cursory glance, would lead one to think that they were multiplied three times. That, is not the fact. If one looks at such explanation as is afforded us on the other side, we find that £18,000 is in respect of "Provision for final settlement of claims for rent in respect of commandeered premises." If one looked to see who occupied those barracks, one would naturally, and, I think, normally expect that they would represent about three times the amount of the Estimates for the pay, because even if we give to the amount of the barracks three times the amount of the preliminary expenses, which is far more than we should give under this figure, we then look to see what is the increase of pay, and we find that the original Estimate was £24,000. If we multiply that by three to correspond with the increased amount for barracks, we get a figure in the neighbourhood of £72,000. Instead of that, when I look at this account, I find that the figure is £406,000, and there is no explanation at all given to us—and, so far as I know, to anyone in the House— how it was that in March the Government estimated that the pay for the Constabulary would be £24,000 at the end of that month, and were so far wrong that that is now swollen to £406,000. So far as I know, there is no explanation, or any possible explanation, of the difference between the pay paid to these men and
such accounts as the rent of barracks and many others. If I look at item H and try to compare that with the rate of pay, I find incidental expenses put down at £5,000, and a deficit now of £43,000. If I look over the page to see what that represents, I find that the delay in disbandment accounts for a deficit of £10,000, so that if you take the original Estimate at D, and you double it to get the incidental expenses, you find not the slightest resemblance between the discrepancies and the pay, which has jumped from £24,000 to £406,000.
It may be that these matters are capable of simple explanation, but no one in the House at this moment has had any explanation at all, or any means of explanation, and although I do not want to appear to be at all hypercritical when, as the hon. Gentleman told us, he is representing the winding-up of the Irish Office, and is in the position of what, I suppose, would be known in my profession as more in the nature of an official receiver, and one does not expect him to be too accurate, or to have too great a knowledge, it certainly does seem, with respectful submission to the hon. Gentleman, that it is treating the Members of the House, who really do take an interest in these accounts, and really do want to know, with a considerable amount of contempt to give us no more information. We are asked to sanction an increased allowance from £24,000 to £406,000 without the slightest idea of what it is for—whether for increased pay to privates in the Royal Irish Constabulary, or whether it is that some highly paid officials in the Constabulary have had very largely increased sums, because they have been kept for a longer time than they anticipated. We know that one gentleman was kept on full pay until he got another appointment, and received £470. I am not in the least prepared to criticise that, or question it, because I have not the slightest idea whether he deserved it or not, but, so far as I know, there may have been 400,000 persons in the same position. What I wish to point out is, that it seems a little hard that there should be any suggestion that we on these benches are at all endeavouring to obstruct the business of the House in asking these questions, if we are not given any information at all. Again, I
do not want to complain of the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help thinking that if he had not been in quite such a hurry to rise, and had given us an opportunity of asking him these questions, he might have given us the information in a few sentences, which would have prevented it being necessary that I, at any rate, should ask these questions again.
It is not as though it stopped there. Looking further down at Miscellaneous Services, we find an original Estimate of £300,000, which has now grown to £370,000. That is comparatively a small increase, because in this House, of course, we are in the proud position of being able to talk about £70,000 in a way which outside the House we should talk in the neighbourhood of 1s. or 6d. Although this figure is comparatively small, we find that it is
Further provision required owing to the expenditure arising out of disbandment being greater than was originally anticipated.
[An HON. MEMBER: "What does it mean?"] Instead of asking me, I wish the hon. Member would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I have not the faintest notion; but I would point out that if one really tries to examine these accounts, not idly from a critical point of view, but really with a desire to know, again he is bound to be struck by the appalling discrepancy between an increase of £70,000 on £300,000 under Miscellaneous Services, and an increase from £24,000 to £406,000 on pay, which, apparently, is accounted for by the same set of circumstances. Whereas it was anticipated that the Royal Irish Constabulary would have, left us by the end of March, they are still, at the end of August, with us, and are getting a sum of £406,000 over and above what we had anticipated. It surely cannot be suggested that questions of this sort-are in any way obstructive. They are really asked, so far at least as I am concerned, with the object of obtaining some sort of information. Although we are dealing here with comparatively a small sum—under £1,000,000–if anyone looks at any of these Estimates, or, so far as I have been able, at any Estimates presented to the House, the information is very meagre on all occasions. I speak now, not only as a new Member, but, I am sure, with the sympathy of a great many other Members, who really want to know, who really feel that if we are dealing with
these financial matters, either we ought to be asked by the Government simply to vote for them without knowing what they are—and if we are told that is what we are expected to do, and. we are merely adopting obstructionist methods, then let us know. We can then say whether we will accept them or not as the case may be—but if, on the other hand, the Government really desire that Members who represent, after all, very large constituencies, should be told to go back to their constituencies and say, "We have done our best to see that your money has been fruitfully and properly expended," I should have thought that we were at least entitled to know what it was being expended for, because I speak quite frankly when I say that at the moment, if I were asked to go into the Lobby to support these accounts without knowing what they wore, I think I should be dishonest, because I should be lending the sanction of my constituents to these accounts without having the slightest idea what they were for.
I know it is a very undesirable and an unwise thing to let hon. Members know that one speaks, as a lawyer, but, of course, that one cannot help. But I have frequently, in the course of my career, been compelled to say to very distinguished gentlemen, and gentlemen of great integrity in the witness box, "Do you mean to tell me you supported these accounts, being in the position of a trustee, without having the slightest idea what they represented?" And if the gentleman in the witness box had said "Yes," a learned Judge, in the full exercise of his discretion, would turn round and say, "Are you not ashamed of yourself? "or words to that effect, and I feel myself in about exactly the same unenviable position as the gentleman in the witness box. So far as I know at this moment, I have not committeed any breach of trust, but I say quite frankly to any hon. Member of this House who goes into the Lobby tonight and votes in favour of these. Estimates, unless he has a great deal more information than I have got, I should like to have an opportunity of cross-examining him, and would undertake to say that when I had finished, he would say that lawyers were a pest both in the House and out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am quite sure my -right hon. Friend the Attorney-General
will join in the universal applause. I say I do not wish to weary the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on!"]—in case I should earn that solemn opprobrium which has properly been awarded to other Members who, on both sides of the House, have spoken in matters not absolutely relevant. The only object of my few observations is really to know, before I go into the Lobby, if I have to go in order to support these Estimates—somebody should give me the information— what they represent. If they do not, then I respectfully suggest to Members of the House upon this side and the other that if they do go into the Lobby to support accounts such as these without greater information they are committing a breach of duty to their constituents.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The first thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the difference in treatment meted out to the unemployed policemen and the unemployed industrial worker. I do not know how the Government manage to change their policy according to the class of people with whom they are dealing, but had these policemen been miners or shipyard workers I submit that there would not have been any Supplementary Estimates submitted at all, but that they would have been dealt with in the same shocking way as the industrial workers are being dealt with at the present time. There is, to my mind, no great difficulty in discovering the difference. In the one case you are dealing with a body of men who are the defenders of the property for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on which they place considerable value, and in the other case you are dealing with the defenders of human lives, on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite place very little value. It is because of that, and of this different outlook on the relative values of material property and of human life that we get a conservative policy of this kind for the police and a conservative policy of the other kind for the industrial workers.
When we turn to these Estimates we are not encouraged to place a great deal of confidence in any future Estimates that may come before the House. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite conducted their businesses in the same way as they evidently conduct the public business I think private enterprise would come to
an untimely decease. Here we have in a comparatively small sum an error of £1,000,000. When I saw this, I was reminded of an article written some years ago by the hon. Gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition in a Glasgow Labour paper, the "Forward." In that article the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the present Prime Minister, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a mistake that cost the nation £32,000 per minute. Now the right hon. Gentleman, with that experience of national finance, is just the sort of right hon. Gentleman that we would expect to put forward an Estimate such as is submitted to us, because here we have an error of £1,000,000 in these Estimates. This goes to show that no interest at all was taken in the preparation of the original Estimate, and that the Government come forward in a slipshod way and throw it at the head of the House' of Commons, and said: "There you are; that is what we intended to spend, knowing that our Estimates are out of it often by £1,000,000, but we have only to go back and, in the exercise of our majority obtained from a foolish electorate in the country, get the extra, money." If they dealt with their own business in that way, I think we would quite soon be able to demonstrate that they wore as incapable of governing industry as they are demonstrably incapable of government in the financial affairs of the country. When you come, to deal with these questions, if you take these items, you again get questions naturally rising in your minds showing how incapable the present people are of governing.
I notice that under Item E—Travelling Expenses—it is said, on page Further provision due to delay in disbandment and issue of free travelling warrants to the homes of all ranks on disbandment, or to Great Britain.
There are two points I want to raise on this Estimate. The first is, what was the cause of the delay in disbandment? Could not the authorities, or the Government, exercise reasonable foresight and have anticipated the delay when the original Estimate was being prepared? That lack of foresight is again displayed in the preparation of this Estimate. It does not encourage us to have a great deal of confidence in the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
who are now responsible for His Majesty's Government. The second point I would like to raise on this item is this: Have these people homes to which to return? I notice that they have been given free travelling warrants to the homes of all ranks on disbandment. Are right hon. Friends quite sure that they have homes? I have experience of men who have been disbanded, men who have served the country just as faithfully as the men whose position we are now considering. These were disbanded workers. They were demobilised. They were sent home, and they had free travelling warrants, but they had no homes and have not yet. They have been promised these homes since 1918. If the police in Ireland, who are your immediate protectors, have been provided with homes, then they are very much more fortunate than those who defended the Empire in its hour of need.
Another thing that occurs to me in reading these Estimates is the amount of "copy" that might be got out of them by a novelist of, say, the calibre of George A. Birmingham. Those who have read Mr. Birmingham's sketches of Irish life and character will remember how the superior Irish people, in the exercise of their political intelligence, have been always able to rob the British purse, which was under the protection of the competent class who are responsible for the Government of this country. I have a very shrewd suspicion, Mr. Speaker, that we are witnessing here just one of those things which might provide a chapter for George A. Birmingham. It looks as if this were one of the last opportunities which this sagacious people would have to rob the British taxpayer, and that our poor, simple Government, as represented by the other side, are sitting silently and hopelessly, and allowing the Irish people to have their own way. I should like to know something about Item E 1– "Arms, Ammunition and Accoutrements—provision to meet the claims which were not furnished by 31st March, 1922." The amount is £22,000. How many of these were really genuine claims 1 I should like to ask whether they were not claims organised between the people who were serving you, and probably others who, for the price of a drink, entered into an agreement with the people who defended law and order in Ireland, and were handed over these arms,
ammunitions and equipment for which we, the British taxpayers, are now asked to pay £22,000. I would also draw attention to Item F, which is "provision for the final settlement of claims for the rent of commandeered premises." This is not rent for ordinary barracks, but it is a sort of Irish arrangement which I think we are bound to view with the utmost suspicion. No doubt it is in respect of commandeered premises which were handed over to the British Government to strengthen the claims of the Irish nation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we are entitled to much more information in regard to this item than is submitted in the two-line paragraph, upon the strength of which we are expected to vote over £18,000. We cannot afford even £10,000 as a Christmas contribution to our own unemployed for the maintenance of little infants who have been in a state of semi-starvation for the last two years. Under these circumstance, I think we are the last people in the world who should vote away money to this extent upon the information which has been supplied to us.
Take the next item, which is "Incidental expenses on account of delay in disbandment, £10,000." It is not £9,999 19s. 11d., but by a most remarkable arithmetical calculation it is exactly £10,000. Supposing the hon. Member had had to disband a number of industrial workers. Would he have reckoned it up in that way? No, he would not, for he would have said, "We do not require your services, out you go." They would not have had travelling warrants or inquiries made whether they had homes or not. You would say to them, "Out you go, you are scrapped for the period of the duration of unemployment." When you are dealing with these men in this Estimate you make the most generous provision, and this delay in disbandment is costing the country £10,000.
Then there is another item, "Claims for wireless and other supplies not furnished by the 31st March, 1922." I do not know who is the draftsman of these paragraphs, but if he is in the House I should like him to give us an explanation of these two lines, "Claims for wireless and other supplies not furnished by the 31st March, 1922." Who do these claims come from?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: These claims are from other Government Departments,
including the Admiralty, the Air Force, and the War Office, and they are repayments for things that happened last year.

Mr. WHEATLEY: What the hon. Member has just said only arouses greater suspicion as to the efficiency of the Government Department for which he is responsible. If these expenses were incurred last year, can we have any reasonable explanation why these Government Departments did not submit these claims by the 31st March, 1922. I think this displays a lack of supervision on the part of the Government and its chief officials, which increases the suspicion with which we regard the manner in which the finances of the country are conducted. The next item is for postal services, including telephones and telegrams. This is an additional expense, and it is not the total for the year, but the amount by which the Government was out of it in estimating the expenditure of the year.
10. P.M.
Even in Ireland one would get a lot of stamps and telephone calls for £10,000. The Government always seem to be looking for a scapegoat in these matters. Again, this item is said to be due to the postponement of disbandment which has necessitated the payment to the Provisional Government in Southern Ireland of this sum for postal services. It seems to me that the Provisional Government in Southern Ireland has succeeded in pulling the leg of His Majesty's Government for stamps alone to the extent of £10,000. In previous years the cost of this service was borne on the Post Office Vote, but the £10,000 is extra in order to satisfy the people who to their credit in the South of Ireland are acting more intelligently on behalf of their constituents than the Government are doing on behalf of the people of this country.
Another sum is required as compensation for damages and injuries owing to the expenditure being greater in this respect than was anticipated. No doubt this is for something which happened in the course of the rather vigorous political campaign that was conducted in Ireland prior to the settlement, and probably there has been a few more black eyes than were anticipated under the original Estimate, and for these additional injuries the provision of a further sum of £14,000 had to be provided. Then,
probably in order to cover up something for which no explanation at all could be given, we get an item for miscellaneous services, being further provision required owing to expenditure again arising out of the disbandment being greater than was originally anticipated. His Majesty's Government seem to be almost as short of English as they are of political ideas, because if you examine these paragraphs you find that there is a remarkable redundancy of words which one would not expect from benches in a position to display so many professors and people who have adorned the sources of British knowledge and education.
If you were submitting, in the case of an ordinary private enterprise, the annual balance-sheet, and you were asked to pass under miscellaneous services the sum of £70,000, what would you do? You would put on your chartered accountant to discover why your servants had covered up a number of items amounting to such a huge sum without giving a detailed examination, because £70,000 is an enormous sum, and that amount as a Christmas gift to the unemployed might save the face of the House of Commons and help to allay the suspicion and distrust of Parliamentary government which are undoubtedly growing, with much justification, amongst the British working classes.
Here we have the Government coming to Parliament, which, it is assumed, has some business knowledge, and submitting an item of £70,000 without giving us a single word of explanation as to how that huge sum has been spent. I am amazed that the British taxpayer is able to stand it at all, If he is to be asked to fork out money in that way, Heaven help him if the present Government is to survive the full statutory period of its existence. 'There are one or two items as to which I should like to ask a question, and the first is on item (J)—"Pensions and Gratuities." Here you have "further provision required owing to the expenditure having been greater than was originally estimated." The same old word-redundancy! There is a sum of £470 included in that in respect of" extra statutory gratuities." Before passing on to the remainder of that paragraph, as my English is not of that perfect character which one acquires at Oxford,
but is of that limited character which one gains in a colliery village, I would like to ask what is the real meaning of the words "extra statutory gratuity." With my limited knowledge I cannot understand it, but it seems to me as if it were not a legal thing. I think it must be something which has not been sanctioned by Parliament and is outside the law. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Estimate may be able to afford some explanation. I know right hon. Gentlemen opposite can very often give a reasonable explanation for taking money in a manner they are not morally entitled to take it.
I say if "Extra Statutory Gratuities" mean anything they mean something illegal: something that the Government has handed over without the authority of the British Parliament, and as I do not sec any indication that my reading of these words is questioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I want to protest against it in the name of that control which this House by immemorial practice and by its constitutional position should have over the finances of this country. It is a shocking shame that the finances of the country should be used in this way outside any Parliamentary control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank (Mr. Kirkwood) would say, it is "brass-facedness." I see the gratuity is for an Inspector-General. I wonder how many Inspector-Generals there are in Ireland? I know we have had a wonderful number of inspectors as well as of generals, but I should like to know how many there are of the hybrid class. This Inspector-General, as I read the Estimate, has already had a sum of £4,000 which was provided in the original Estimate. That in itself surely has a decent pension value. The other day I saw the Prime Minister hold up his hands in holy horror at the idea of increasing the old age pension from 10s. to 20s. a week, or, indeed, at the idea of making any addition to it at all. I remember, too, a statement made by the late Prime Minister in which he asked the workers to be audacious in their demands. If their demands had been framed on the standard evidently in the mind of the right hon Gentleman when he gave that gratuitous advice to the working classes of Great Britain, and if they had said, "We want to have pen-
sions provided for us, because, after all, a miner, or a steel worker, or a shipbuilder, in the terms of useful employment, renders as much service to the country as any Irish police official," if any of these had come forward and said that they wanted a pension of the value of £4,000, and if, on the top of that, they had said they were not satisfied and desired an additional sum of £470, I wonder what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said. I want to know whether any pension has been granted to this Inspector-General. This item refers here only to his retiring allowance, with an "extra statutory gratuity," totalling in all £4,470. Why, I would almost retire from Parliament for that amount! I am submitting these questions in all sincerity,
There is one other item which I should like to deal with, although I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. May I say, in passing, I am afraid that the statement which has been submitted here would not be passed by any juvenile football club in Scotland as a properly prepared statement of its financial position? When you come to the item "Appropriations-in-Aid" it is stated here that, "It is anticipated that it will not be possible to recover within the current financial year sums due from certain local authorities in Northern Ireland in respect of extra police expenditure." There is one part of Ireland you have kept for yourselves—Northern Ireland. You have said to Southern Ireland, "You can go. This is the last you will get from us." But Northern Ireland, with that shrewdness which comes from an admixture of British industrialism with the original Irish character has stuck leech-like to Great Britain, and is going to make us pay for the honours of having its representatives in the British Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen from Ulster would be the first to complain if we submitted that their Parliament in Ireland was anything but a subordinate Parliament. I have heard those hon. Gentlemen in the last few days talk about their loyalty to Great Britain. I wonder what it is worth. Evidently in this case it is not worth paying their debts. Hon. Members are, of course, familiar with the story of the man who saw a person knocked down in the street and injured. A sympathetic
crowd had gathered around the injured person, and this good Samaritan came along and said, "My sympathy is worth 2s., how much is yours worth? "I want to know how much the loyalty of Northern Ireland is worth. Surely it should be worth paying for their police. What a confession of almost imbecility we have from the British Government here, when they say that, with all the money we have paid for the Army, with all the money we have paid for the Navy, even with two battleships being laid down to strengthen the naval armament of the British Empire, we are not in a position to obtain from the local authorities in Northern Ireland the extra money we have spent on police services. It is a humiliating confession on the one side; it is evidence of dishonesty on the other. I protest again most emphatically, as a representative of the British taxpayer, that I should be asked to vote this sum of £71,000, merely because His Majesty's Government has not the courage to face up to the wild men of the North of Ireland.
There is a claim here on the Belfast Corporation which has been disputed. Of course, men of that character would always dispute a claim, no matter how reasonable or how well-founded in law it was, particularly when they are dealing with such backboneless Gentlemen as occupy the Government Bench. There is a dispute by that authority as to the amount, and the matter is the subject of litigation. Where is the litigation taking place? That is very important. If we are to estimate what prospect we have of getting what we claim, a great deal depends upon where the Court is held. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a case like this, would be quite agreeable that there should be a right of appeal to one of the various Courts that officiate in Southern Ireland at the present moment, or were officiating until quite recently. If one were to put any estimate on the value of this, one would require to know whether the litigation was to take place in Britain, or in Belfast, or in Southern Ireland. On all these points I hope the hon. Gentleman—who, I noticed, was giving careful attention to my remarks—will be able to give us some further information, because, until I am further enlightened, I shall refuse to go into the Lobby in support of these Estimates.

Mr. F. GRAY: There is one point on which I should be glad of assistance in clearing up the discrepancy between the Estimate or imagination of the Government in regard to Item B, on the one hand, and the actual fact of the figures as they are worked out on the other. The hon Gentleman in charge of the Estimate sought to explain the discrepancy by the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary remained in charge of Southern Ireland until such time as the Free State had established an efficient police force. In point of fact, had the British Government been under any obligation under the Treaty to do that—which they were not, so far as I know—they might well, until this moment, have maintained an efficient Royal Irish Constabulary Force in Ireland; but, from the Treaty to the present time, there has not only been no efficient police force in the greater part of Southern Ireland under the Free State, but no police force at all. I say there was no obligation. The complaint made to me, both in Southern and in Northern Ireland, by individual members of the Royal Irish Constabulary—not a public complaint, because that they dared not make, having regard to Item J, under which they hope to get pensions and gratuities out of the British Government—the complaint that they privately and personally made was that the British Government, after the Treaty, first withdrew the Army, upon which those gallant men of the Royal Irish Constabulary had relied for support, and allowed, in a large number of cases, the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to struggle to the coast, there to be taken off, if they could by gunboats sent out by the British Government. I believe the explanation to be that, as in all other measures, the Government, half-way through, entirely changed their policy. Their first policy, after the Treaty, was hastily to withdraw the Army and to disband the Royal Irish Constabulary. When they had pursued that policy for a time, a moment of doubt arose as to whether they had been wise in what they had already done, and they changed their policy then as to part of Ireland, and maintained the Army, which they had promised the Free State under the Treaty they would withdraw at once; and they continued to maintain, where they maintained the Army, the Royal Irish Constabulary, not
in pursuance of an obligation, but in defiance of the compact into which they had entered with the Free State.

Mr. G. SPENCER: It is singularly unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman, on the presentation of his first Estimates, should have to submit Estimates which are supplementary, because I know of no Member of the House who has been so critical of expenditure which has not received the sanction of the House before the money has been spent. On more than one occasion he has raised the old constitutional issue about Government spending money which has not been authorised. If there ever was a case where we have a right to protest against expenditure without the authorisation of the House it is the first three items the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If the assumption of the last speaker is correct, we acted in defiance of the Treaty obligations. I do not want to argue from that point of view. I want to take the line the hon. Gentleman has presented because he made it perfectly clear that when the time arrived when the Irish Constabulary should be withdrawn from Ireland, Ireland was not then in a position to undertake the duty which would devolve upon her. At that moment, Ireland said to the Department that had the oversight of the Irish Constabulary, "Let a part of the Constabulary remain in Ireland until we are in a position to supplement them with our own men." If that be correct, I want to ask is this expenditure going to fall upon Ireland or upon Great Britain? I can understand Ireland making an appeal to Great Britain, and saying, "We have not the men at the moment: we have not a place to put our men; we cannot undertake this duty all at once, but if you will continue to perform this task for a period, we will he responsible for the expenditure." But I gather that instead of that being the case, the Department has gratuitously undertaken the duty which should have fallen upon the Free State.
Is that assumption correct or are we to understand that Ireland in due time will pay us for the services which have been rendered? If my assumption is correct, that Ireland is not going to pay for the service Great Britain has rendered, I am justified in raising the constitutional issue. Every hon. Member who has had experi-
ence of the Committee where these Estimates will be finally presented, knows that ever and anon when questions are asked the answer is, "We have a covering letter from the Treasury for this expenditure." It is not enough to get a covering letter from the Treasury for expenditure of this character, expenditure which was originally estimated at £24,000 and has been raised to £430,000. The House is entitled to know whether the Free State is going to discharge her financial obligations, and if she is not, those who have incurred this debt have incurred it not only without receiving the sanction of the House, but, I am certain, without in any way expecting to receive the support of this side of the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will only reply on those points with which I did not deal in my original statement.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the Free State going to pay this money?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. The disbandment was postponed. It was done by agreement with the Free State. In view of the situation in Ireland, and the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary was an Imperial Force recruited by us, it was thought inadvisable to proceed with the disbandment. In regard to item H, "Incidental expenses," only £10,000 of the £38,530 is due to delay of disbandment, the rest being outstanding claims belonging to the years 1920–21 from other Departments, such as wireless apparatus, search-lights, etc., provided for the Admiralty during the disturbed times in Ireland, which have only come in this year. The £70,000 for the creation of disturbance allowances was due to the fact that, under pressure of this House, a great many of the Royal Irish Constabulary men who, on disbandment, were in danger of their lives, were given a special allowance to enable them to remove their wives and children to this country for safety. The disbanded men could not return to their own homes in Ireland. These men had been carrying on at the peril of their lives, upholding British authority in troublous times in Ireland. When disbandment came, a great many of the men went to their homes, but many of them were shot at, and some of them were actually killed. Quite rightly, this House determined that those who wished to come for asylum
to Great Britain could do so, and that they would be granted a special allowance if their wives and families were brought out of the danger zone to this country. The £70,000 is a sum which could not have been foreseen beforehand, and we now ask for a Supplementary Estimate to defray the allowance.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I should be glad if my hon. Friend, or someone else, would answer a question in regard to the disturbance allowance. That allowance was made because members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, upon disbandment, were driven out of their homes by threats of violence, had to come over to this country, or had to go to Northern Ireland, and leave their homes in which they had hoped to spend the rest of their days. In doing so, they were obliged to incur the cost of removal for themselves and their families. The allowances were from one month to three months' pay, but in most cases the men have spent more than that sum, owing to their removal to a place of safety.
Only three days ago a circular was issued from the Irish Office to all the men who had got these disbandment allowances, calling on them to furnish a strict account of every item of expenditure to which they had been put by being driven out of their homes, and telling them that if they did not furnish that account by the 1st of January next the disbandment allowances, which they had already received and spent, would be deducted from their pay. I would ask the House to say that this is not a fair way to treat these men. They served the British Government faithfully and well, and many of them served it at the cost of their lives. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the unemployed?"] I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had more sympathy for men who, in circumstances of great difficulty and danger, faithfully served the State, and earned what they got for their pay and compensation for their dismissal through no fault of their own.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: So did the unemployed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The point is that these men were disbanded, not because they wanted to be, but because it was your policy. Your policy was their forced retirement or dismissal from their
position. They got this compensation for being driven out of their homes, and they have spent it, and it is not fair to these men to tell them now that, unless they give an account of every farthing of this expenditure, the money will be deducted.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know nothing of this circular. I have not seen it. If it is brought to my attention I will study it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If I have not got it in my pocket at the moment I will give it to my hon. Friend to-morrow. I am sure that he will put the matter right, because we must treat these men fairly and generously. I notice in this Estimate an item for postal services, including telegrams, owing to postponement of disbandment, necessitating the payment to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland of some £10,000 which is charged to the British Exchequer. Why are we paying to the Provisional Government out of the pocket of the British taxpayer for postal (service caused by the postponement of disbandment? Does

it mean that the Government sent free letters about the country in consequence of the postponement of disbandment, and did not put on the letters the 2d. stamps which the Irish Government require?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I explained this very fully to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion) in my original statement. The Irish Post Office was handed over to the Provisional Government on the 1st of April, and full disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary did not take place until the 31st of August, and we had to pay the cost of postage to the Provisional Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I must apologise to my hon. Friend. I was not present at the time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 139.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[10.37 pm.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Furness, G. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbralth, J. F. W.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Garland, C. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gates, Percy


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Clayton, G. C.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Astor, J. J. (Kent. Dover)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cope, Major William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Banks, Mitchell
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gretton. Colonel John


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Becker, Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Crook, C. W, (East Ham, North)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W. D'by)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Halstead, Major D.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, F. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hawke, John Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Brass, Captain W,
Ednam, Viscount
Henn, Sir Sydney H


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elveden, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Bruton, Sir James
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hinds, John


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fawkes, Major F. H,
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Fildes, Henry
Hohler. Gerald Fitzroy


Butcher, Sir John George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Butt, Sir Alfred
Flanagan, W. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Houfton, John Plowright


Cassels, J. D.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Cautley, Henry strother
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hudson, Capt. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hume, G. H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Singleton, J. E.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Skelton, A. N.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sparkes, H. W.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Paget, T. G.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Jophcott, A. R,
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sutcliffe, T.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Penny, Frederick George
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Lamb, J. O.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lane Fox, Lieut,-Colonel G. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pielou, D. p.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Raine, W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lorden, John William
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. c
Wallace, Captain E.


Lorimer, H. D.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lort-Williams, J.
Renter, J. R.
Waring, Major Walter


Lougher, L.
Rentoul, G. S.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wells, S. R.


McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Windsor, Viscount


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Winterton, Earl


Manville, Edward
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wise, Frederick


Margesson, H. D. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Wolmer, Viscount


Mercer, Colonel H,
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Sandon, Lord



Murchison, C. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nail, Major Joseph
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Shepperson, E. W.



NOES.


Adamson, W M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnln, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Westarn)


Attlee, C. R.
Hancock, John George
Newbold, J. T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardle, George D.
Nichol, Robert


Barnes, A.
Harney, E. A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold


Bonwick, A.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Paling, W.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hastings, Patrick
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Broad, F. A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Brotherton, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Buckle, J.
Hngge, James Myles
Richards, R.


Burgess, S.
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cairns, John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Chapple, W. A.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Royce, William Stapleton


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Saklatvala, S.


Collison, Levl
Kenyon, Barnet
Scrymgeour, E.


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Shinwell, Emanuel


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Edmonds, G.
Linfield, F. C.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lunn, William
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Snell, Harry


Fairbalrn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Snowden, Philip


Foot, Isaac
McLaren, Andrew
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
March, S.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Marshall, Sir Arthur K.
Stephen, Campbell


Greenall, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, Weal)


Groves, T.
Morel, E. D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thornton, M.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Muir, John W.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Westwood, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Warne, G. H.
Wheatley, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, w.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wignall, James



Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Weir, L. M.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Amnion.


Welsh, J. C.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 140.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[10.46 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lorden, John William


Ateher-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Fildes, Henry
Lorimer, H. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lort-Williams, J.


Aslbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Flanagan, W. H.
Lougher, L.


Astor, J. J. {Kent Dover)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lumley, L. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, L.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Banks, Mitchell
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Becker, Harry
Furness, G. J.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Manville, Edward


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, H. D. R.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Garland, C. S.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Berry, Sir George
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Betterton, Henry B.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Goff, Sir R. Park
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Blundell, F. N.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. i. T. C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Brass, Captain W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murchison, C. K.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nall, Major Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Halstead, Major D.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Harrison, F. C.
Paget, T. G.


Butcher, Sir John George
Harvey, Major S. E.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hawke, John Anthony
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hay, Major T. w. (Norfolk, South)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Henn, Sir Sydney H
Penny, Frederick George


Cassels, J. D.
Hcnnessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, Dennis (Hertlord, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Phillpson, H. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pielou, D. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Hinds, John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Raine, W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rawson, Lieut-Com. A. C.


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Colvln, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Houfton, John Plowright
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Conway, Sir w. Martin
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cope, Major William
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hume, G. H.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roundell, Colonel R. F,


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise. Major E.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow. E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton)
Sandon, Lord


Ednam, Viscount
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Shaw, Hon Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Sinclair, Sir A.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Singleton, J. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Windsor, Viscount


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Earl


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wise, Frederick


Somerville, Daniel (Sarrow-ln-Furn'ss)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sparkes, H. W.
Wallace, Captain E.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingiton-upon-Hull)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Waring, Major Walter
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Sutcliffe, T.
Wells, S. R.



Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Richards, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, C. R.
Hastings, Patrick
Ritson, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes A.
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bonwick, A.
Herrlotts, J.
Rose, Frank H.


Bowdier. W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, F. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brotherton, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckle, J.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burgess, S.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Butler, J. R. m. (Cambridge Univ.)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Philip


Chapple, W. A.
Leach, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C
Lee, F.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Collison, Levi
Linfield, F. C.
Stephen, Campbell


Darbishire, C. W.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duffy, T. Gavan
M'Entee, V. L.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.J


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Thornton, M.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edmonds, G.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Warne, G. H.


Emlyn-Jones. J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Entwistte, Major C. F.
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morel, E. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Foot, Isaac
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Weir, L. M.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Welsh, J. C.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Whlteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nichol, Robert
Wignall, James


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Atterclifle)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parker, H. (Haniey)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Hancock, John George
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.



Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If I may, I would like to open by entering my protest against the action of H.M. Government in applying the Closure.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow that. Any hon. Member is entitled to move the Closure at any period. But it becomes the action of the House if the House approve it, and the hon. Member is not entitled to criticise the action of the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I regret sincerely that my lack of familiarity with the rules of the House has led me into making an error of that description. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the lesson will not be lost on me, because I am sure there is no one more anxious to comply with the rules of the House. I feel rather timid in getting up again so shortly after my recent attack on the Irish Estimates, again to bear the responsibility of refusing money to the hon. Gentleman on the other side, because I do feel that there may yet have to be provision made in
some Supplementary Estimate to meet the cost of ensuring the lives of Members of this House who have the temerity to refuse to hand over the British taxpayers' hard-earned money to gentlemen from Ireland who find it so easy to get money by putting in claims on H.M. Government. The Supplementary Estimate before us is required for the year ending 31st March, 1923, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I want again to enter my protest against this manner of carrying on the financial business of the House, that we should first of all have Estimates submitted which proclaim to be a reasonable Estimate of the expenditure for carrying on certain departments, and then the Government should, without notice, and with very little information, throw Supplementary Estimates of this description at our heads, and leave us only a few hours in which to examine the accounts. There is a good deal about which I should like information. First, I would like to know whether the house is still occupied by the Lord Lieutenant. I notice that the expenses are for the year ending 31st March, 1923. I understand that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been scrapped—and that the gentleman who was once a familiar figure in this House, Mr. Tim Healy, had been appointed to the position which is called, I believe, the Governor-Generalship of Ireland. Is the Lord Lieutenant still in existence I Does he still occupy the house? Is he still spending money on it; Why have the Government the nerve to come forward and ask for money to meet the expense on a house that is empty, so far as the Lord Lieutenant is con-concerned. In addition, I want to know what was the salary of the Gentleman who occupied this position? My recollection—

Mr. SPEAKER: That will come on the new Estimates.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I was trying to bring out this point; whether or not he could provide some of those things for himself. It is not unreasonable that we shoud remember the poverty and that provision for the unemployed—

Major PAGET: On a point of Order. Does the subject of unemployment come
under the heading of the housing of the Lord Lieutenant?

Mr. WHEATLEY: That is just the point I want to raise. Honourable and right hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that they are not the whole of the country; that there are other people not so well off in this world's goods. There are one and a-half million of taxpayers unemployed—

Mr. SPEAKER: I gave the hon. Gentleman a good deal of latitude a while ago, and I would ask him not to repeat what he has said.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I should be very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to trespass even within any reasonable distance of breaking the rules of the House. But I am always driven back to this: the difference in the outlook on the part of His Majesty's Government, in its estimate of the different sections that go to make up the population of the country.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would read Standing Order 19, which provides against repetition.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that for the purpose under review that there has already been granted £3,886 in the original Estimate. Is not that a reasonable sum to carry on the Household, even for one, however mighty and however virtuous, and for the family? His own salary and maintenance do not here come to it all. He has already had a sum which by a process of mental calculation I have worked out to be in the neighbourhood of £75 week for 50 or 52 weeks in the year. There is the maintenance of the Chapel in the Estimate. I suppose religion is an essential part of the running of this House hold I These people cannot afford to go outside, as Ireland is a dangerous country, and I suppose religious services are to be obtained as near as possible to their own fireside. Again, let me re mind the House that the people who are asked to supply the additional sum are to the number of a million and a half at present unemployed, and have not—

Mr. SPEAKER: Standing Order 19 says that, in the case of any Member guilty of repetition, the Speaker may direct him to resume his seat. I have warned the hon. Member.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Is not that an error of judgment, Mr. Speaker— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order"]— Does not this paragraph deal with salaries also, and was not the hon. Gentleman dealing with salaries when he was E topped?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will see from the Note that the original Estimate made provision up to the 30th September only. The only point now is why this expenditure was not foreseen when the original Estimate was submitted.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not in order to criticise the source from which this money should come?

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises another question altogether.

Mr. WHEATLEY: In view of the fact that we are being asked for a Supplementary Estimate in spite of the enormous sum already granted I ask for some in formation as to the purposes to which this supplementary sum is to be devoted. It is not unreasonable to ask how many servants are employed. I want to know whether they have any work to do and if not why do you go out of your way to grant them this generous allowance. That is not the usual Governmental way of treating people who have no work to do. Could not the people' who run these establishments do a considerable amount of this work themselves, because it would be a good thing for them to work some times. The suggestion behind these proposals is that they should get other people to do the work and not pay them out of their salaries but out of the taxes in older that the people who employ the servants may sit idle at our expense. That is not a very elevating position and it is bad not only for the taxpayers but for these officers who ought to have' an opportunity of doing their own work—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out "£1,360," and to insert instead thereof "£1,260."
I do this in order to obtain from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite an explanation of the items in this Vote. I also move this reduction because I do not think that we have gained in this
country any compensating advantage for this additional expenditure of £1,360. It is possible Ireland may have gained something from the prolonged presence of the Lord Lieutenant, but where do we come in? The original Estimate assumed that the Lord Lieutenant would only stay in Ireland until the 30th September, where he stayed three months longer. Why should the British taxpayer pay for that additional three months? Presumably it was for the good of the benefit of the people of Ireland, and if they got no advantage why did the Lord Lieutenant stay on? And why is it that the additional sums asked for are not all proportionate to this additional three months? In some cases the items are higher, in other cases they are less than the proper proportion. It is peculiar that the proportion is much greater in the case of wages and allowances than in the case of travelling and incidental expenses. Surely the proportion should have been equal in both cases? We shall feel bound to vote for this reduction of the Vote as a protest against the continued residence in Ireland of the Lord Lieutenant after the 30th September last.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to second the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote, and I hope you, Sir, will be more kindly to me than my predecessor. Rightly or wrongly, I believe the Lord Lieutenant is now one of the unemployed, and I want to look at this Vote from that point of view. This is a claim put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for a member of their class. I say that because they are always up against us members of the working class.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Vote. The hon. and gallant Member has asked a number of pertinent questions on the Vote, and we cannot go beyond that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is with the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order. May I say that there is no money in this Estimate for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is evident, according to the paper which I hold in my hand, that we are asked to pay an additional £1,300–I hope I am not making a mistake this time—and the paper states that it is
for salaries. I want hon. Members to watch the variation that takes place here. The hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) drew the attention of the House a few minutes ago to the manner in which the Government uses the words of the English language, and right hon. Gentlemen, and hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and Noble Lords, are part and parcel of this discrimination. The paper says "Salaries," and the next word is "Wages"; and then they tell us that we are the individuals who raise class strife. Why, they cannot keep it out, even in making up a simple statement such as this. I ask the hon. Gentlemen, what is the meaning of it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the hon. Member wish me to explain that point? It is because the caretaker of the Viceregal Lodge has a salary. She is the head housemaid, as it were. The under-housemaid has wages.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Gentleman stands condemned. He has simply admitted my contention that because certain individuals occupy a certain status in society, the money which they receive is designated salary, while the money received by others who are in another station in life is designated wages. I am not getting away one little bit from what is here. The next word we come to that strikes me as requiring some explanation and translation —? [Interruption] —? is "Allowances"—allowances to a man—I am being interrupted.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I must also interrupt the hon. Member. These headings are not the subject of discussion on this Vote. I have explained twice, I think, earlier in the evening, that these headings are merely taken from the main Estimates for purposes of reference, and are not, therefore, matters open to Debate when we are asked for a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think you, Sir, will agree with me that some allowance ought to be made for the fact that we were not here when this yearly Report was submitted.

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not allow that. The last Parliament dealt with the main Estimates of the year. The fact that the
hon. Member was not here does not alter the case.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a pity for the other people. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter for me. This is for household expenses extra. "Household of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for three months £1,360." I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he is gallant or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Give me a chance and I will speak up, and everyone will hear me too. But I am in no hurry. I have the floor of the House.

Sir BURTON CHADW1CK: On a point of Order. How long is the House to be entertained—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is reflecting on my action in the Chair.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Put that in your pipe, and smoke it. I should like to know if, when the Lord-Lieutenant was dismissed, he got a pension?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite irrelevant to the matter under consideration. I must now ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give us some information. It is not enough that hon. Members should laugh when we have become converts to their economy doctrines. We ought to be encouraged in this because this is the sort of thing that used to be preached in the country. After what happened last week, we cannot allow money to be voted here without knowing exactly the reasons for which the money is voted. The hon. Member told the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that the caretaker had it salary and the housemaid had wages. Did he really mean that as a reply, or was he trying to lead us to believe that there is only one department? Is there a multitude behind these two? We also want information about "Travelling and incidental expenses." I notice the word "household" again. As this only applies to a period of three months, they appear we have done a lot of flitting in that household. One cannot say what it would cost for a year, but I predict that when the Irish people have to pay for these things themselves they will be kept within reasonable bounds. So long as hey can
get this House to vote these lump sums, they will get money out of the British taxpayer. All that Ireland seems to be united upon is in making demands upon this House. We have ben experimenting for the last three weeks with questions, and I have come to the conclusion that if one wants to get no information the best plan is to put down a question. The Government has developed into a fine art in trying to mislead questioners, or telling them nothing.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I was referring to the statement made by the hon. Member in charge of these Estimates. He said that if we wanted certain information we must ask Questions. We have been asking Questions, and it is almost an insult to Scotch Members the treatment they have got in connection with Scotch business. We are now on Irish business which for a long time has monopolised this House. We are anxious to know-how the money is being spent, and when we are going to come to the end of it. There is an item "Salaries and allowances. Chapel," for which an additional sum of £160 is asked for a period of three months. Somebody appears to be doing pretty well out of religion.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will do my best to give an explanation. It was said that on the last Vote I replied in too great a hurry. One hon. Member complains that I did not give an explanation of this Supplementary Estimate at once. They cannot have it both ways. When the original Estimate was prepared in January last, it was presumed by the Chief Secretary, who prepared it, that the Constitution would be completed and ratified by an Act of this Parliament by 30th September. We all know that it was not so ratified until last week, 6th December, consequently it becomes necessary to make provision for the period between 30th September and 6th December, when all these offices came to an end. The first item, £600 additional, is for salaries and wages in connection with the Viceregal Lodge. The reason that the amount is disproportionate to the previous Estimate is, I understand, that in order to prepare the Viceregal Lodge for the new Governor-General a certain amount of painting of some kind had to be done at
the last minute when the old staff went out.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That does not come under this Vote.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that it does. That is the information which I have. Two or three extra persons had to be employed to do this work.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I think that I am in order in questioning the putting of money under another Vote altogether, and trying to induce the House to believe that it has come under this Vote. I have the original Estimate and there is nothing for upkeep. The whole of the Estimate is either for the chapel or for a motor car or for wages of the Master of the Horse and other officials. There is nothing for repairs to the Viceregal Lodge. Therefor the hon. Gentleman is out of order in putting it under this Vote.

Mr. SPEAKER: That remains to be seen. We must first let the House hear the hon. Member.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I admit that there is nothing for repairs, but the information which I have is that it was necessary to hand over the buildings to the now Governor-General under the new regime in decent order. The second item deals with travelling expenses. It is for the expenses of the people who have had to act as intermediaries between the Provisional Government and the British Government over here, and there are also, I understand, expenses of evacuation. The wages and salaries in connection with the-chapel I understand have no connection with Viceregal Lodge. That item refers to the King's Chapel in Dublin Castle and the salaries and allowances paid to the Chaplain, the Master of the King's Music, the Organist, the Precentor, and the-Choirmaster, £160, are for the period in question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The House ought to insist on the withdrawal of this Estimate. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his explanation. This Estimate is the extra money required to pay for travelling and salaries and, wages and allowances. It does not contain anything about housekeepers or housemaids, but deals with such things as Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, two assist-
and Private Secretaries, Comptroller, Master of the Stables, Ulster King of Arms, Athlone King of Arms, physician to the household, chaplain, sergeant of riding school and two temporary clerks and typists. That is item A, and we are asked to pay an extra £600 to continue these people in being, although the Provisional Government took over Dublin Castle as long ago as last August. Item B is travelling and incidental expenses of the household, for which we are asked to continue an expenditure of £600. That is for the maintenance and running expenses of the motor-car of the Lord Lieutenant, the travelling of the Lord Lieutenant on public service. If the painters and decorators have been employed at our expense the outlay ought not to be included in this Vote. We shall never have people accounting until the House of Commons insists on accuracy and efficiency in the presentation of Estimates. There are items of £47 for newspapers—nearly £1 a week— sums for the salary and allowances of the chaplain, the reading clerk and the keeper of the chapel. The item of painting and decoration and reconstruction comes under Class I, Vote 14, where there is a special Vote for the Viceregal Lodge and Secretary's Lodge of some thousands of pounds. It is on that item that any

question of painting and decorating should come, and it is absolutely wrong that we should be asked to vote the money under the heading of salaries and allowances. As a matter of fact, during some years in the public service I have seen this sort of thing done again and again; but it was not often that Parliament was able to find it out. I have seen money that was voted for entirely different purposes used for furbishing the Admiralty yachts, and the House was misled in that way. That is an example. The real reason why the office of Lord Lieutenant was continued was to have some excuse for continuing to pay a salary to Sir Hamar Greenwood, the Chief Secretary under the late Government. The whole thing is extremely unsatisfactory. I do not want to be hard on the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of the Vote and who has only recently taken over a very difficult post. If Ireland is in his bailiwick I pity him. I dare say he will be able to give us an explanation on another occasion, but I submit that the Vote should be withdrawn now, and presented to the House only when the full information is available.

Question put, "That '£1,360' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 125.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Flanagan, W. H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestler-Walker, L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Archershee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wlllrid W.
Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Furness, G. J,


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baird, Rt. Hon, Sir John Lawrence
Clayton, G. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Garland, C. S.


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gates, Percy


Banks, Mitchell
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cope, Major William
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Golf, Sir R. Park


Becker, Harry
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gretton, Colonel John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blundell, F. N.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive
Ednam, Viscount
Halstead, Major D.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Elliot. Capt. Walter F. (Lanark)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Elveden, Viscount
Harney, E. A.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Harrison, F. C.


Broton, Sir James
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eyres-Monsell, Com, Bolton M,
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fildes, Henry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Shepperson, E. W,


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Hlley, Sir Ernest
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Singleton, J. E.


Hinds. John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Skelton, A. N.


Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nail, Major Joseph
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sparkes, H. W.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Norton Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Houfton, John Plowright
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Paget, T. G.
Sutcliffe, T.


Hudson, Capt. A.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Penny, Frederick George
Tltchfield, Marquess of


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Philipson, H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wallace, Captain E.


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Raine, W.
Waring, Major Walter


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herelord)
Windsor, Viscount


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Winterton, Earl


Lort-Williams, J.
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wise. Frederick


tougher, L.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wolmer, Viscount


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lumley, L. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sanders, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, 3.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B,
Lieut. -Colonel Gibbs and Major


Manville. Edward
Sandon, Lord
Barnston.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murray, R.(Renfrew, Western)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newbold, J. T. W.


Amnion, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nichol, Robert


Attlee, C. R.
Hancock, John George
O'Grady, Captain James


Barnes, A.
Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Bonwick, A.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Bowdler, W. A.
Hastings, Patrick
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Broad, F. A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastie)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian


Brotherton, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Herriotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Pringle, W. M, R.


Buckle, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rose, Frank H.


Collison, Levi
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sexton, James


Darblshire, C. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shlnwell, Emanuel


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Allred (Wednesbury)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwlek)
Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Snell, Harry


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
McLaren, Andrew
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Stephen, Campbell


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Sullivan, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Middieton, G.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Greenall, T.
Morel, E. D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thornton, M.


Groves, T.
Muir, John W
Trevelyan, C. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)




Warne, G. H.
Westwood, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C;


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Wheatley, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Whiteley, W.



Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Weir, L. M.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)
Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn.


Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Captain HAY: I beg to move to leave out "£282,875," and to insert instead thereof "£282,775."
I will start with item E, Pensions Appeals Tribunals, Salaries, etc. The original Estimate was £4,175, and the revised Estimate is £5,000. I have no objection to those figures. Had the original Estimate been double, it would not have troubled me in the slightest. I take this opportunity to try to do something for those men who are silent to-day, and have not much chance of speaking for themselves.
An hon. Member opposite has spoken to-night about the meanness of some Government Departments in calling upon men of the Royal Irish Constabulary to give careful and meticulous details of expenses incurred in their flight from Ireland to some asylum in England I am not surprised that alter these me I had done what was asked of them—I do not say I should have liked their job—that now the Government, or some part of the Government, turn round upon them and ask for details which possibly they canot give. Keeping faith has never been a mark of some Governments. I will not labour that, but I wish now to say what faith has been kept and what faith is being kept, not with hundreds, but with thousands, of the men who have been wounded and disabled in the War. I desire to say—if I am out of Order, I must be silent—that if there is one tribunal regarded with suspicion by these ex-service men it is the appeal tribunal. There is such a thing as common know ledge. I may be told that after all these ex-service men go before the tribunal with their appeals, and they are put in train by medical men who take up their cases. We have been told—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. That comes on quite another Vote—-what we ordinarily call the Pensions Appeals Tribunals.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I notice the following under Sub-
head E.I.,dealing with Salaries for Pensions AppealsTribunals:—
Provision for payment of salaries of Members of an additional Tribunal for Assessment of Pensions, and for an additional Tribunal for Entitlement Cases.
I understand the hon. and gallant Member objects to these Tribunals for Entitlement Cases.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On that point of Order. This is for a specific additional Tribunal for Entitlement Cases in Ireland. I believe it was appointed under the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland for dealing specifically with Irish cases.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then it is open to discuss the Irish cases; of course, but not the English cases, which come in under quite another Vote.

Captain HAY: I am not discussing the English cases—I am sorry to be out of Order—I am dealing with cases of ex-service men who come before this tribunal. There is no doubt whatever about what they suffer and as to their wounds and disabilities. It may be that these men have found that they were suffering from tuberculosis four or five years after their War service had finished. Now they come before these tribunals to be turned down, to my personal knowledge, and told that their illness, say, tuberculosis or diabetes, or some other thing, was not caused by their War service or even aggravated by their War service. We know quite well—not as medical men, but from common knowledge—that in most of these cases these men were strong men, from 25 to 35 or 40 years of age. They wont into the War strong and powerful and well set-up in every direction. Now, after the War, we find that they have contracted some disease, such as tuberculosis. There is no doubt about their disability, and there is no doubt in the minds of ordinary folk that the disability was contracted in the War or aggravated by War service. We find that in very many cases these men are simply turned down, with a medical statement that, in the opinion of the appeal tribunal, their illness was not-caused or aggravated by war service.
I wish now to speak for those men who have delivered the goods, for those men who did not stand up and make their bargain with the country in the time of the country's difficulties, but who offered themselves freely for service, and now that the country has got from them all it can get, now that they have been sucked dry, now that the very core has been pulled out of them, it is possible for them to come before tribunals of medical men and simply be turned down by an opinion which we who knew these men before the War know quite well is a wrong opinion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) reminds me that in Ireland there was no conscription and that all the men were volunteers. That is the point I am trying to labour at the present time, that while there was no doubt about those men's service, that it was free and unstinted, now that they have given their all, they must be brought before medical tribunals, turned round, examined, sized up, smiled upon or sneered at, and dismissed with a medical opinion that the disability was not due to war service or aggravated thereby.
I wish also to speak about the training in agriculture of ex-service officers and men, and here again I wish to bring out the fact that there is grave dissatisfaction, not only with the length and character of the training provided, but with the manner of selecting people who are to undergo that training. The whole thing is riddled with dissatisfaction and, so far as I can see, with injustice. Ex-soldiers, in other words, do not know and cannot learn the why and the where-for of one man being taken and another man being left, and many of them are in grave doubts as to the real value of the training they receive. In some cases men, having received a training and having learned a great deal about agriculture, go out to find jobs, trying in many cases to conceal carefully where they got their training, because the mere mention of the fact that they got it under a Government training scheme is enough to put them out of court at once.
12 M.
Under the item D, Schemes under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, the original estimate was £600,000; now it has been swelled by more than 50 per cent, to £950,000. I think there is some explanation required
here, because the war finished in 1918, and the wounded or disabled or ex-Service men of any description who were likely to apply for resettlement were bound to be known. The number and the amount of money which would be required must have been known approximately. Why then do we find that in a Vote of this description we have the first Estimate swelled by over 50 per cent? Is it the fact that more men are crowding in to demand training, or that prices in some direction have gone up, or is it that some miscalculation has been made? Under those items, and chiefly under A and E, there is grave dissatisfaction among ex-Service men, who have gone to the appeal tribunal, at the fact that there is no appeal apparently from that tribunal, and many of these men and a great number of the general public feel and know that the cases have not received just treatment. I think it was in to-day's Order Paper that I saw the case of a man whose pension is now being stopped, because he could not give the date on which ho was blinded and the casualty clearing station to which he was carried. These are the things that rankle in the breasts of ex-Service men. Among ex-Service men there is a strong current that is firmly believed, that when a man goes before an Appeal Tribunal of any description he goes before a medical tribunal which is working under secret orders. The efforts—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the main Estimate. This is merely a question of an additional sum. It does not raise the other points, whether right or wrong.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely it is in order to deal with the question of the utility of tribunals when the question is the construction or the appointment of a. further tribunal?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is raising the whole question of the policy of the main Vote.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the need of a new Tribunal is largely due to the policy of the Ministry in multiplying the number of appeals?

Mr. SPEAKER: That again turns upon the main policy.

Captain HAY: I am afraid that anything more I might say would be out of order, so I will resume my seat after moving the reduction of the Vote by £100.

Major ATTLEE: I beg to second the Amendment. The House is entitled to some explanation of the extraordinary difference we find in these figures. The original Estimate was £47,000; that has been increased by £30,000. Why? I am seconding this for the purpose of getting information. I do not want to stop anything that is being done by ex-service men in Ireland. I only wish such a Vote could be extended to England. We have schemes under the Land Act and we have, too, schemes for agricultural education for which a very small sum appears in the Estimate. I can hardly make out how much education they are going to get and how many ex-service officers and men are to be trained in agriculture out of this additional £1,800. I should like to be informed how much of this money is being allocated to the different parts of Ireland. Is the expenditure to be confined to the agricultural districts or are the mining towns to share the benefit? How much of the money is going to Dublin and Belfast, and how much to the country areas'? The information accompanying this Estimate is the minimum amount that could be given, and I think the House is entitled, when it is asked to vote large sums of money, to be provided with the fullest possible information before it is called upon to discuss the Votes. It ought not to be contented with getting the information during the course of the Debate by means of question and answer across the Table.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, I may say at once I sympathise with his desire that as full explanations as possible should be given at the commencement of the discussion on any estimate, but unfortunately that is not possible under the system which obtains on the Report stage here, because it is the custom to allow hon. Members first to move and second the Motion for the reduction before the Minister in charge of the Vote makes his explanation and gives what information is at his disposal. Still, I will do my best to enlighten the hon.
Gentleman on the points he has raised. With regard to agricultural education and the amount herein provided, I gather that this is practically the final Vote for the training of ex-service men in Ireland in this manner: 211 ex-service men have undergone a special course of agricultural training in Ireland and a good many have already finished it and are coming under the Settlement scheme. I am given to understand that the results, so far as Ireland is concerned, have been very fairly satisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the hon. Gentleman say that 211 have been settled under this scheme?"] No. I understand that approximately a thousand courses have been granted to Ireland under the University scheme, of which 700 are provided for in this sum of £77,300, and the reason why the estimate is £30,000 less than originally anticipated is that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland hoped that the Provisional Government would be in a position to pay some portion of the grant for the higher education of ex-service men. But that hope has not been fulfilled, owing to the financial difficulties of the Provisional Government.
The main item is, of course, that of £350,000, and that is due to the passage of an Act this Session under which, it will be remembered, it is proposed to set up a body of Trustees—three representing Great Britain and one each representing Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland—to carry on the scheme already in existence for the provision of houses and small holdings for ex-service men in Ireland. It is intended to provide a total of 3,672 houses, of which rather more than one half are in course of construction. Some indeed are actually completed. The sum asked for now is to enable construction to be carried on until the end of the current financial year, but if before the end of that period the Board of Trustees is set up and is in operation any sum which may be unexpended will be repaid to the Imperial Exchequer. A new Vote will be necessary next year to provide funds to enable the Trustees to carry on the work. These schemes are the Irish share of the money that was granted under the Land Settlement Act both to England and to Scotland, which is regarded as an Imperial obligation by this country whether any Trust is set up or not. As regards the Appeal Tribunal I under stand from my right hon. Friend
the Minister of Pensions that it was asked for by the ex-service men themselves, and so far from its having any secret instructions it operates altogether apart from the Ministry of Pensions. It was appointed by the Lord Chancellor and has no connexion with the Ministry of Pensions. It does its work free of that body. But if my hon. Friend who moved the reduction of the Vote has any case of any ex-service man in Ireland who feels aggrieved, I shall be very glad if he will bring the matter to my personal attention. I have listened carefully to his speech and I did not gather that he had in mind the case of any particular Irish ex-service man. His remarks indeed were rather directed to the general question. I gather that there are already tribunals of this kind in Ireland, and that this Supplementary Estimate is required because there has been a certain amount of delay in dealing with cases. An additional Estimate will be required for the purpose of speeding up the machinery and to get these things finally settled.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many soldiers applied to be settled on the land, how many were passed as suitable applicants and how many of those so passed were actually settled?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I have-not got the information by me. The answer would necessitate some statistical research. I have of course the work of the Colonial Office to do as well as look after these Irish matters. But if the hon Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to get the information he asks for.

Mr. PALING: I would be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will get the information. I have had some experience in these matters in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I know that the number of men actually settled, compared with the number who wanted to settle, is very email indeed.

Mr. PR INGLE: I think the House is greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given. There are, however, one or two other points on which hon. Members, will be glad to have a little further information. With respect, to the function of the appeals tribunals, it is true that the tribunals were set up in the first instance at the
request of the ex-service men, who believed that the tribunals would be a means of protecting their interests. A surprising thing in relation to this Vote is that a further Entitlements Tribunal and a further Assessment Tribunal are required. That must be necessary because of a larger number of appeals having arisen than was anticipated. To what extent is the increased number of appeals due to appeals coming from the Ministry, or due to appeals coming from ex-service men? We know of many cases where the appeal comes from the Ministry. That is a general impression amongst ex-service men. If it is a false impression, the Ministry of Pensions will be very glad to have the false impression removed. The impression does exist that much of the work of these tribunals is due to the action of the Ministry in appealing against the tribunals of first instance.
I do not want to go into the question of agricultural education or higher education. We are all very glad to see that additional money is available for these purposes in Ireland, and that there are ex-service men in Ireland who benefit from the Votes made by this House; but it is very extraordinary that the original Estimate in connection with the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, should be exceeded by such a large sum as £350,000. In the original Estimate there was provided in 1921-22 a sum of £1,200,000. It was assumed, apparently, when the original Estimates for this year were compiled that that sum would be sufficient.
It now appears that £350,000 in addition is required. The explanation given is hardly adequate. The hon. Gentleman told us that it was due to the creation of a new trust under the Consequential Provisions Act. Later on, he said it was doubtful whether that trust would function before the end of the financial year. The trust, obviously, has nothing to do with the vote of this further sum of money. The only justification for it can be that a larger number of ex-service men are going to be settled in Ireland than was contemplated at the beginning of the financial year. In other words, Ireland is going to receive in this financial year a large amount than is her due proportion in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want, except,
by way of illustration, to refer to what has happened here, but we know that settlement has come to an end here. Actually at this moment ex-service men who had been settled under the schemes are under notice to quit. It is very strange that while that is happening in this country larger sums are becoming available in Ireland for the settlement of a larger number of men than can be settled in this country. Before we agree to this bigger sum for Ireland we should have some explanation of this preferential treatment for Ireland. The other grants are entirely justifiable, but I think that before the House comes to a decision on this Vote we are entitled to further information on both these points—firstly, as to the Appeal Tribunal, and secondly, as to the question of settlement.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The information I have is that the additional entitlement tribunal is a purely temporary tribunal appointed to overtake the arrears which have accumulated owing to the number of cases to be dealt with in Southern Ireland and to the disturbed condition of that country. That is all the information I have been able to obtain on that point. With regard to the other point, I gather that the sum of £600,000 was fixed this year because it was half the amount allotted last year, and because it was anticipated that the Provisional Government might be willing to contribute the other £600,000. It now appears that only £950,000 will be wanted, and not the full £1,200,000, and I am given to understand that in the main the applicants have been selected and met.

Mr. PRINGLE: There was the other point as to the question of appeals at the instance of the Ministry. Could the Minister of Pensions say something on that, from the point of view of the ex-service men?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am very happy to correct any misapprehension that there may be in the mind of the hon. Member. I do not think, if I may say so, that he has grasped the point. It is quite simple. When the assessment of a man has been decided—that is to say, the extent to which he is disabled—the question whether that particular disablement is due to the War has to be decided. If the Ministry of Pensions should decide that a particular dis-
ablement is not due to the War, the man has a right of appeal to an entitlement tribunal. The Ministry, obviously, would not in any circumstances wish to appeal against its own decision, and it is obvious that the appeal would be from the man against the Ministry. The existence of these tribunals was due, firstly, to the demands of the ex-service men and, secondly, to the decision of the House of Commons, which instituted these tribunals. Any suggestion that we should have fewer tribunals would not in any way influence the decision arrived at, but would have the effect, which I am sure the hon. Member did not realise, not of doing justice to the ex-service men, but of delaying a decision which they are anxious to secure.

Mr. LAWSON: When I saw the note at the bottom of page 8 of this Estimate, I almost thought of making the suggestion that we should get a move on to get some of our ex-service men to go over to Ireland. They do seem to have a better prospect there than here. This Supplementary Estimate practically increases the original Estimate by one-third; and when I tell the House that the original Estimate for ex-service men in this country was over-estimated by £10,000,000–that is to say, that their pensions are economised upon to that extent—I think the House will agree that it is much better to be an ex-service man in Ireland than in England at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in Scotland."] Or in Scotland. I ought to have said "Britain." I think the state of things must be very happy over there as far as ex-service men are concerned. One of my hon. Friends says "No." Most of the Members who usually speak for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for compensation and all the rest of it for people in that Department, have, not spoken here at all to-night. There are scarcely any of them here. It must be happy to be on the other side of the House, because you can make your arrangements and go home. You can increase the grants to particular sections of men by 33 per cent., and you need not be here to do it.
I want to call attention for a moment to the question of the pensions appeal tribunals. I am sorry for the ex-service men in Ireland that they are going to get an extra pensions appeal tribunal. I see from one of the notes here that these tribunals are understood to be for the
assessment of pensions. That must be news to Members in this House, and particularly to ex-service Members. The usual impression now is that pensions appeal tribunals are for stopping pensions. When I tell the House that the number of pensioners in this country in the last twelve months has been reduced by 700,000, chiefly by the operation of the pensions appeal tribunals, I think the House will feel rather sorry for the ex-service men in Ireland that they have an extra pensions appeal tribunal set up for them. Of course it may be quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the ex-soldiers asked for the pensions appeal tribunal. Everyone says that on the other side of the House, every time the question comes up. I wonder if the Irish ex-service men asked for this extra pensions appeal tribunal? I know they did not. I know they never asked for any appeal tribunals anywhere. It is all very well to say that the increase in the number of tribunals means that the appeals are sooner heard, but the ex-service man knows very well now that, the more appeal tribunals there are, the more men are sent to the appeal tribunals. That is the position exactly. I have now in my possession a particular case. I do not want to transgress the Rules of the House, but it is typical of many cases that are coming forward. You get a man with synovitis, or a disease like that—

Mr. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member came in, I pointed out that we could not pursue that line of argument. It would be quite in order on the main Vote, but not on this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. LAWSON: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I heard the ruling you gave, but I thought it would be permissible to use an illustration of the kind of work that the pensions appeal tribunal is called upon to do. I will not pursue that line of argument. All I would say concerning the pensions appeal tribunals, to those who say that ex-service men want them, is that I should like the definite opinion of ex-service men, and particularly pensioners, upon pensions appeal tribunals at the present time, and upon their effect upon them. When the time comes, evidence is going to be given, which will take some challenging, that the appeal tribunal principle must either be considerably modified or some drastic
change must be made in the composition of these bodies.
I am very much interested to see that there is an amount here of £30,000 for higher education. I am wondering who is going to get the benefit of that higher education—what proportion of officers and what proportion of the ordinary rank and file? What kind of education is it? Is it fitting them for special professions, or simply giving them a general education such as some of our officers got in the universities here?
It is very important to men who have been shell-shocked or have had limbs damaged that they should be given very great consideration in fitting them for particular professions. I have many cases in mind, and I am sure there must be some cases of this kind in Ireland, because these are fairly common cases. The men get neurasthenia, or complaints of that kind, and they want opportunities of fitting themselves for the struggle of life, sometimes it is of art, sometimes for some other profession.

Mr. SPEAKER: This would be quite right on the main vote, but this being a question of policy, it does not arise on the supplementary estimate.

Mi. LAWSON: I apologise, but I should like the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give us an explanation, if he can, as to where this £30,000 is going to. What is it going to accomplish? Are the ex-officers going to get the bulk of the money? What proportion do the ex-soldiers of the rank and file get? And particularly I want to know what kind of work it is going to do. Is it going to fit men to get a new hold on the life-line; because that is the real test of the value of this work? Until we get that information, I think there is good reason for opposing this particular Estimate. I say quite frankly that I shall take the opportunity of following my friends into the Lobby against this Estimate. I shall fight Pensions Appeal Tribunals, whether one is set up or whether it is 21, until there is some drastic overhauling of the general principle on which they act, whether they are in England or Ireland.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: I feel this question, even though it is raised on the Irish Vote, is one of such vital importance to the general policy affecting
ex-service men, and one must be pardoned for making one or two observations. Myself, I am sorry that the money proposed to be spent on this extra Appeal Tribunal in Ireland is not being given direct to the ex-service men who have had their claims assessed at a certain degree of disability. If there were fewer appeal claims to be heard and the Pensions Minister would accept the responsibility and the liability which is undoubtedly his, money would be saved which they are spending on the Appeals Tribunals and be spent on the cases of the ex-service men themselves. Unfortunately, the same principle is being established in regard to the Irish Appeal Tribunals as operates in this country. The Ministry is asking the men to accept too great a responsibility in justifying their claims to pension rights. The reverse principle ought to be accepted; the Ministry in Ireland ought to accept the full responsibility of proving that the man is not entitled to a pension. Instead of that an unjust system is operating against ex-service men. I wish to ask the Minister of Pensions whether he can tell us the number of pension appeals which have been lodged from the Irish area, how many his Department has turned down, and how many have been granted? I suppose it would be a little unfair to press this question too far, but there is a great principle at stake, and I hope the Pensions Minister will give some further attention to it, because while I do not join with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in the entire condemnation of the Appeal Tribunals—for I feel that in Ireland they can render as good service as they have been doing in this country—yet at the same time too great a demand is being made upon them, and justice can be given to the ex-service men without submitting so many cases to these Tribunals.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: As an ex-service Irishman, perhaps I need

hardly apologise to the House for just saying a word or two in connection with the Estimate. I would like to join with my hon. Friends opposite—if I may call them so—in their desire to debate fully the question of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. I hope we shall have an opportunity very soon of entering into a thorough discussion about them, and so far as I have listened to hon. Members opposite, I shall be very glad to support, to some extent at all events, the sentiments they have expressed. I do not entirely condemn these proposals, but if hon. Members opposite will look at the Order Paper to-morrow they will see my idea of what it is that sometimes happens. We have grievances over there, as we always have; but we really have got some grievances about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ohester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), said he would go into the lobby to support the reduction of this Vote, partially on the question of the Appeal Tribunals, but I put it to him that the general subject of Appeal Tribunals does not enter into consideration on this vote. Out of love for the ex-service men, I would appeal to the hon. Members opposite not to press this to a Division. I am certain that hon. Members opposite have a real love for ex-service men, whether Irishmen, Englishmen or Scotsmen, and I know-that I need not recall to them the magnificent work that those men performed. I hope that members of the Labour party will do nothing by proposing a reduction on this Vote to suggest that they would stand in the way of these men being treated, as I am sure hon. Members and the Government wish to see them treated.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN  rose, in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 104.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Banks, Mitchell
Blundell, F. N.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brass, Captain W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Becker, Harry
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Ashley, LL-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Brittaln, Sir Harry


Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Berry, Sir George
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.
Bruton, Sir James


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Campion, Lieut.-Cblonel W. R.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Remer, J. R.


Cassels, J. P.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rentoul, G. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rothschild, Lionel de


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roundel), Colonel R. F.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hopkins, John W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Houfton, John Plowright
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Doyle, N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sinclair, Sir A.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Singleton, J. E.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Skelton, A. N.


Ednam, Viscount
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kellcy, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eivedon, Viscount
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sparkes, H, w.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H,


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lane-Fox. Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sutcliffc, T.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Fildes, Henry
Lort-Williams, J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Flanagan, W. H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lumley, L. R,
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Forestler-Walker, L.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Titchfield. Marquess of


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Frascr, Major Sir Keith
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Furness, G. J.
Manville, Edward
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wallace, Captain E.


Garland, C. S.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Waring, Major Walter


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Greene, Lt.-Col-Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murchison. C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. p, (Finchley)
Windsor, Viscount


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Earl


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Bg.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wise, Frederick


Hall, Liout.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (UV'B'I.W. D'by)
Paget, T. G.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Hipon)


Halstead, Major D.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hancock, John George
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Penny, Frederick George



Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Henderson, Sir T, (Roxburgh)
Philipson, H. H.
Barnston.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lansbury, George


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenall, T.
Leach, W.


Attlee, C. R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
M'Entee, V. L.


Bonwick, A.
Groves, T.
McLaren, Andrew


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. H., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Brotherton, J.
Hardle, George D.
Middleton, G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Morel, E. D.


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Patrick
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buckle, J.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Muir, John W.


Burgess, S.
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Cairns, John
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Charleton, H. C.
Herrlotts, J.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Collison, Levi
Hinds, John
Nichol, Robert


Darbishire, C. W.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hogge, James Myles
Paling, W.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Duncan, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Phillipps, Vivian


Entwlstle, Major C. F.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Fairbairn, R, R.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Potts, John S.


Foot, Isaac
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.


Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wheatley, J.


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, W.


Sexton, James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Thorne, G. R. (Woiverhampton, E.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attcrcliffe)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thornton, M.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Warne, G. H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline)



Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, T. (Pantefract)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Lawson.


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Welsh, J. C.



Resolution agreed to.

Sixth Resolution read Second time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Committee which is here referred to sat for some time under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and now the Chairmanship has been taken over by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy). The duty of this Committee is to take temporary measures to relieve distress, and I cannot do better than point to the sums set out in this Estimate. On every hand one hears of the immense work this Committee has done for the distressed refugees of Ireland, and I hope this Vote will not be opposed in any quarter of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I want to find out from my right hon. Friend is what is the total assistance that is to be given. Here we have £10,000 doubled in the course of a very few months. What is the total allowance going to be to this Committee? Can we find out from the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of claims that are coming before him and how far he has got through the claims. Did they run to hundreds or to thousands, and how many have been dealt with? What is the sum total likely to be and is the whole of this liability to devolve on the United Kingdom and how far is it to devolve on the Free State or Northern Ireland? As far as I made out from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, this refers only to refugees from Southern Ireland.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it include refugees from Northern Ireland?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It includes Catholic refugees fleeing from Ulster to Glasgow, just as it includes Protestant refugees from the South going from England or going to Ulster?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Britain. Only Great
Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a case of compensating people for damages or to meet cases of exceprional damages. Is that so?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like to know what number of cases there are and how far is the whole amount to be met in this way? Secondly, is there any possible chance of getting any of this money back from Ireland or getting the Provisional Government of the Free State to meet part of the bill? After all, the expulsions from the North and South of Ireland are not primarily the fault of the British taxpayer or the British working man. We have to look after the refugees when they come here. That is admitted; but as long as there is a Government that ought to pay, surely we should make some attempt to get this money back from them. I would like finally to know how much of this £20,000 is for Catholic people fleeing from Ulster and how much for Protestants fleeing from the rest of Ireland?

Sir S. HOARE: Perhaps I may answer one of my most distinguished constituents. I cannot give the exact number of cases with which this Committee has dealt. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the interim report of the Committee, he will find full details. Roughly speaking, I think there are about 4,000 cases, and of these cases about one-half are Protestants and about one-half Roman Catholics. But the great majority of them come from Southern Ireland. At the same time, there are a certain number of cases that come from Northern Ireland. How many cases there will be in the future neither I nor anybody
else can possibly say, but it must depend upon the course of events in Ireland and on the restoration of law and order, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, at any rate, up to the time that I resigned the position of Chairman of this Committee we had dealt with every case without any distinction as to whether the refugee was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, or whether he came from the North or the South. The other question that the hon. and gallant Member asked me was who was to be responsible for the money that this Committee had spent. I can reassure the House on this point, for the Provisional Government have accepted full responsibility for the whole of the funds that we have spent on the relief of refugees from the South. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Northern Ireland?"] I myself went over to Dublin during the summer and I discussed this question with Mr. Cosgrove. There was no difference of opinion between us on the subject. The Provisional Government accepted full responsibility for the expenditure, and in due course we shall no doubt be reimbursed both for the original Vote and for the Supplementary Vote we are asking the House to pass this morning.

HON. MEMBERS: What about Northern Ireland?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would like to ask why is the Provisional Government not paying now? Why should this sum apear first on our Estimates?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member will remember that a great many of these financial questions between ourselves and the Provisional Government arc being held up until the final settlement. In some cases we are paying first and in other cases they are paying first, but there is no question whatever about the Provisional Government having accepted financial responsibility for this expenditure, and we shall certainly get it back.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is just about one o'clock, and we have been here since very early in the afternoon. I submit we have done a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. We have watched right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House yawning, and I was very pleased to recognise that after all they are only human
and that there are at least some things in common between us. For my friends on this side of the House I can say that they have registered a very practical protest against unemployment. They have worked for eleven hours and it seems rather paradoxical that we should be working double time to protest against other people having no work at all. But that seems to be the way of the world and of this House. I submit that the business we are now discussing is much too important to be discussed by a jaded House, for neither on one side or the other have we the mental alertness that is needed to discuss these questions at this hour of the morning, and I think we are now entitled to relief from our duties.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Motion.
During the War a Committee was set up to deal with the hours of labour of workpeople, and one of the things the Committee reported was that workpeople all over the world were unable to perform their work so profitably for their employers after they had been working for a certain length of time. My argument is that this House cannot do its work so well after a certain time. I have been here since half-past nine yesterday morning attending to the wants of my constituents and after attending fairly regularly to the debates in this House I will have to be here again this morning because the people of Glasgow demand that: their Member of Parliament—

Colonel Sir A. H0LBROOK: I rise to a point of Order. We are not discussing Glasgow at the present time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I submit I will have to be here early to-day to attend to my constituents. I, being a young man, require some sleep. My father used to tell me that a young man needed far more sleep than an old man and he being a Scotsman I always take a Scotsman's advice. In any case, I feel I require a certain amount of sleep to be able to perform my work properly, and, coming straight from the factory floor, I can say I always found twelve hours' work was sufficient anywhere. Having now performed fifteen hours' work on behalf of the community, I think we have done very well indeed, and I hope that the Government under these circumstances will accept this Motion. I have personally
a claim on the National Health Insurance and it might affect the funds of the nation if I have to do without sleep. [Laughter.] Therefore to save the taxpayer money I want to object to any further sitting.
1.0 A.M.
Of course if the Government and my Friends on the other side are going to continue, I shall feel it my duty to remain because I cannot allow the questions that are coming before us to pass without discussion. Having put the case before the House, I can now return to my constituents with some feeling of having looked after not only my own welfare, but the welfare of hon. Members opposite. Having seconded the Motion and having entered my protest and given my advice to the House, I hope they will now adjourn, as it is one o'clock.
There is one other thing to which I should like to call the attention of the House. My financial position, after being here for some time, does not allow me to afford a taxicab home and I have to walk home. I want to remind the House that it is not very enjoyable walking a long distance home, and especially if it comes on to rain. Having regard to the fact that my coat is very nearly gone, and until my quarter's salary—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think the hon. Member is now departing from the Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to say this in all seriousness to the House, that to carry on business at one o'clock in the morning is not the best way of carrying on business. During the War I met hon. Gentlemen on the other side on questions of wages and conditions of great vital importance to this country. I have met them here in London and sat negotiating until twelve and one in the morning, and I know well how the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs (Mr. Lloyd George) used to tell us that from the point of view of the country it would be better for us and for the country if we went home and had a sleep. From that point of view, then, we might well adjourn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Of course, if the House would consent as we would like them to consent to continue to sit into next week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good old Monte Carlo!"]—and cut out not
only Monte Carlo but this long Recess when there will be no Parliament, nobody representing the democracy of this country for the people outside to appeal to—if they would consent to cutting down the Recess, extending the period of this Parliament and calling the next more quickly, we would not be faced with the present difficulty. Our difficulty has been not only to-night, but on other nights when there had been bargains with the other side that the House was to prorogue at the end of this week. There is no need. We can perfectly well continue in Session and we on this side believe we ought to continue in Session. You can get your Estimates, you can go on to-night, you can vote us down, closure the debate on unemployment—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Like they did all the others.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the way to carry on business. Your own supporters are almost in rebellion now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You have got the big battalions. You can vote us down. Do you think you can get much satisfaction from that process, and I am quite certain that the country outside will realise what it means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members opposite sometimes think of the country.

Mr. NEWBOLD: They own it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The country is beginning to realise that in time of exceptional crisis Parliament should be in session and not enjoying itself in Switzerland. We have conditions now when one and a half million are unemployed in the country, and when it is advisable that these subjects should be thrashed out in the House of Commons. I hope my two hon. Friends who moved the Adjournment of the Debate will withdraw the Motion, for the only alternative before us is to have this discussion again to-morrow night instead of to-night. As we are here now, let us go on now. If the Government will consent even now to extend the debate and the sitting of the House into next week, so that we can get proper and decent discussion, that will be the best solution. I am only sorry that the Prime Minister is not here in order that he might hear our arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your leader?"] We are sometimes told in the Labour Party that we are all followers
and no leaders. The leaders of the Labour Party are generally told that they follow in the tail of their followers. I am speaking on this occasion for my leaders as well as myself. The leaders on both sides are not present. My leaders would emphasise the appeal I now make to the leaders on the other side, that we should have an opportunity of discussing, not only this question, but the very serious questions of foreign affairs which now concern this country at a decent hour, and that we should have every opportunity of expressing what the people of this country are thinking instead of expressing the opinions of tired men at two o'clock in the morning.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to join in the appeal that we should go home. I have had at least a dozen ancient members as ancient as myself, ask me for a pair in the last three hours. [Interruption.] You need not shout. Some of you are there now. You are as eager to go home as I am. Many years ago I was taught, like my hon. Friend, that it is wiser to get a few hours sleep before twelve than after. Does anyone think that in carrying on business at this hour of the morning that we are carrying it on in a common-sense way? I have sat in the Strangers' Gallery and watched you or the people who were there before you many times, late and early, and I have been very much disgusted when I have seen Members asleep, or nearly asleep, and I wondered why it was that they did not realise that the country could not be properly governed, could not get proper laws passed if they were passed in this fashion. We have been told that we should adjourn in order that the Government might give us more time next week. That provoked rather a hilarious outburst on the other side, as if it were something extraordinary that we who have been elected to do the work of the nation should be asked to sit and do the work continuously instead of running away from it. After this vote you have got the McGrigor's Bank and unemployment to be discussed.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: It that all?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member opposite asks is that all. It is the measure of our intelligence if we do not realise that the unemployment problem is of far greater importance than any other dis-
cussed in this House. Do hon. Members realise that you are going to compel us to go home on Friday for four, five, or six weeks and leave that question practically untouched? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I have sat in the House all these weeks while it has been discussed. I have heard the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and the Minister for Labour, and I think I under stand the whole of the programme put forward, and it does not amount to any thing of any worth to the million and a half unemployed. You have had two scenes in the lobby, and you might have had quite a riot out there—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member connect this with the Motion that the Debate be adjourned?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is necessary to have full and adequate time at a reasonable hour of the day to discuss the important question of the day, namely, the unemployment of a million and a half men and women. Hon. Members opposite will perhaps force us to sit during to-night to debate it. If you have a majority you can do that, but will you really get a decent debate worthy of the occasion? Everybody knows that Members opposite will not debate at all. You will just leave the Debate to us right through the night. That will prove to the unemployed that we really are in dead earnest about the question. It will prove that you think more about your holidays next week than about them. We ought to have some consideration for the people that are employed about this place. I think it is a disgrace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no use giving these ironical cheers. I have sat on that side when most of you ten years ago did exactly the same as is being done tonight. You tried to get the questions you were interested in discussed to the fullest length possible. We have no right to impose on the men who have to carry on the work of this place the duty of sitting here all these hours. We want only a few more days before Christmas to enable us to really thoroughly discuss these matters, and then to meet immediately after Christmas and let the House of Commons seriously sit down and consider unemployment. If you cannot find a solution let us say to the unemployed, "There is no solution but to starve unless you are strong enough to pull
society down and put something else in its place." That is the alternative the men in the lobby had to-night. Before you use your mechanical majority you ought to consider what you said to them during the War and what you said to them when you wanted to get their votes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion for the Adjournment intend to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Colonel Wedgwood). If so, I have nothing to say, but if not, much as I sympathise with the desire of everybody to go home to bed, I have got to represent what I think is the view of the majority of members of this House. The alternatives before us are to go on sitting into next week or to make an effort to finish our business and to get the House prorogued on Friday. I think I am representing the views of the large majority of the members of the House when I say that even for the sake of rest—which the leader of the Labour party claimed at the opening of the Session as very much needed by himself and his party—a better rest would be obtained by finishing on Friday and having a full rest over the week end than would be gained by going to bed now at 1 o'clock and sitting into next week.

Mr. HOGGE: There is one point which I think has been forgotten. I say this as a member who has never failed to sit through any long sitting we have had in this House. The Government brought us together to discuss the question of Ireland. It was a special Session in which other business was not to intervene. Since then the Government has introduced the Trades Facilities Bill, and the Canadian Cattle Bill. By arrangements through which we call in this House the "usual channels," the Opposition agreed to the Committee stage of these Supplementary Estimates going through without any discussion. On the Committee stage it is much easier for Members of the Opposition to raise their points of substance, because on the Report stage no Member can speak twice. Both the Government and the Opposition are pledged to economy and the discussion of Estimates. To-day we have had a long and, I think, a very unnecessary discussion on the Report stage of the Third
Reading of the Bill dealing with the importation of animals. We wasted up to seven o'clock, without any Division at all. There was no conflict of opinion; nobody in the House was prepared to divide the House on the Canadian cattle question. On these Estimates, which deal with the expenditure of public money, we are forced by the arrangement of business to discuss these vital questions of finance in the early hours of the morning. That is not a business arrangement. That is all that the Opposition are saying. The Home Secretary says, in defence of what the Government is doing, that we need a week-end's rest. I do not know what he means. What does he mean by a weekend's rest? He is not coming back after the week-end; and what is the use of putting the argument that we need a weekend's rest. This House is rising on Friday till the 13th February. That is the date on which Parliament is going to reassemble. Suppose we had been at war. During the War we never had a long recess because of the difficulty of supplies to our fighting men. What we are asking to-night is that we ought to have a short Recess because of the difficulty of supplies for our working men. That is a fair point. If the Government know that the Opposition are quite willing to sit in the House, why need we rise on Friday? There is no substantial reason.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The majority want it.

Mr. HOGGE: The Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) says: "Because the majority want it." The majority of the House brought us together to consider Ireland. That was all; but they put any amount of other work on the House, work which is important to the country; and I think my hon. and gallant Friend who is leading the Opposition (Colonel Wedg wood) will agree that the Opposition are going into the Lobby to record their view that the Government is not doing a fair thing in discussing for the first time on the report stage Estimates which they ought to have given the House an opportunity of discussing on the Committee stage.

Mr. SHINWELL: Whether hon. Members opposite are desirous of remaining or going away, may I respectfully suggest to them that there is no reason in the world why their Leader during these debates should so frequently intervene with a
Motion for the Closure. If the subjects under review are supposed to be of importance, and it is obvious that hon. Members on the other side believe they are important, or we should not be here, there appears to be no reason at all why discussion should be burked by the frequent moving of the Closure. I would direct the attention of hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends on this side to a statement made by the Prime Minister in reply to a question submitted during the afternoon. He said to the Leader of the Opposition that if business demanded it he would consider carefully and sympathetically the desirability of calling the House together during the proposed Recess. If there is any urgent business on which the House should be called together surely it is that of un-employment. At this time, with evidences of mental fatigue so obvious all around us, we are asked to consider the pressing question of unemployment. Apparently there are hon. Members opposite who imagine that they can indulge in ironical cheers at the expense of hon. Members on this side and occasionally indulge in jeers, seeming to resent any references to themselves from this side. I want to make it clear to hon. Members opposite that we can give just as much as the other side, and probably a good deal more.
I was absolutely amazed when the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) intervened to suggest that the majority ought to rule on a question of this kind. The majority have a perfect right to rule, but the majority must act fairly and honestly in the interests of the constituencies whom they claim to represent, and I challenge hon. Members opposite to go to their constituents and say to them that at this hour in the morning they propose to discuss the question of unemployment. I question very much whether the unemployed in the constituencies, and unfortunately there are no constituencies in the country without unemployed, will take that kind of action lying down. I submit that since you have kept us here— [Laughter.] It is quite true that hon. Members opposite have been singularly quiet despite the fact that they do not agree with all the proposals which emanate from the Government, as was obvious yesterday when there was an incipient revolt which might have developed, which might have created havoc from the Government's standpoint—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the remarks of the hon. Member are not relevant to the matters now under consideration.

Mr. SHINWELL: I hope the havoc to which I was about to refer will not take place for some little time, so as to enable us to direct attention to other faults which the Government, in our judgment, possess. But I do respectfully submit to the House that at this time we ought to give consideration to the eminently reasonable and temperate proposal of the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley). He knows the effect of fatigue at a time like this. He knows we can adapt outselves both to the Rules of the House and the Debates before us by adopting different methods from those at present in operation. Might I suggest to hon. Members opposite, who so frequently tender advice to the working classes as to the desirability of adopting the three-shift system, that we might adopt the three-shift system in this House. [An HON MEMBER: "Payment by results!"] I did not ask for that interjection, but since it has been offered, might I suggest, that payment by results would create starvation here.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this is in order on a Motion that the Debate be adjourned.

Mr. SHINWELL: I only succeeded in getting myself out of order when you arrived, Mr. Speaker. I claim, at any rate, that we have a perfect right to submit a Motion of this kind to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Submit it!") Hon. Members opposite when they submit Motions think it unnecessary to submit any arguments in support of them. That is one of the advantages of a majority. But we on this side are compelled to state our case in support of Motions. It is perfectly true that hon. Members opposite feel that the effect of their majority, perhaps an ephemeral majority, an evanescent majority: in my opinion a majority which will succumb to the influences which will be brought to bear—

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 93: Noes, 185.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[1.32 a.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Herriotts, J.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Batey, Joseph
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bolhwell)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brotherton, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Buckle, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Sullivan, J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
M'Entee, V. L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duffy, T. Gavan
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Duncan, C.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Entwlstle, Major C. F.
Morel, E. D.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, Isaac
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.



Hardle, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Potts, John S.
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringie, W. M. R,
Jones.


Hayday, Arthur






NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Elvedon, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. sir William James
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Hurd, Percy A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Fildes, Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Baird, Rt. Hon Sir John Lawrence
Flanagan, W. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Baldwin, Pt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Becker, Harry
Furness, G. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. O.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Garland, C. S.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Berry, Sir George
Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Betterton, Henry B.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lort-Williams, J.


Blundell, F. N.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Margesson. H. D R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Halstead, Major D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hancock, John George
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Harrison, F. C.
Murchison, C. K.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Nail, Major Joseph


Cassels, J. D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Nicholson, Brig -Gen. J. (Westminster)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Clayton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Paget, T. G.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Cope, Major William
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Hinds, John
Penny, Frederick George


Curzon, Captain viscount
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Philipson, H. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Hood, Sir Joseph
Raine, W.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hopkins, John w. w.
Rawson, Lieut. Com. A. C.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossleyl
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Ednam, Viscount
Houfton, John Plowright
Remer, J. R.




Reynolds, W. G. w.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waring, Major Walter


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sparkes, H. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Wells, S. R.


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H, H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Russell, William (Bolton)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Windsor, Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sutcliffe, T.
Winterton, Earl


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney]
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wise, Frederick


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sandon, Lord
Thornton, M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shakespeare, G. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Shepperson, E. W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough



Sinclair, Sir A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain E.
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Barnston.

Question again proposed.

Mr. R. MURRAY: I take it that, having decided that we are not going to adjourn at this stages of the morning, we must proceed with the duty which was in front of us of considering this question with regard to the Refugees' grant. There are several points that I want some enlightenment on with regard to this matter. I only want enlightenment with regard to these matters. We are growing very familiar on this side of the House with the vast amount of inattention which Members on the other side consider all that is necessary when dealing with question of this kind.

Mr. KIRWOOD: That is how our forefathers chased their forefathers. The ruthless Scots!

Mr. MURRAY: The point I specially want to make with regard to this is: What is the number of the refugees, and on what basis—

Sir S. HOARE: I have already said the number is about four thousand.

Mr. MURRAY: Is that the number from all sections of Ireland? We have four thousand refugees from Ireland, and what I want to know now is the basis on which these refugees have been paid. It has been freely reported in Glasgow that there has been a very considerable disparity in treating these refugees. Some are receiving very considerable amounts and many other are being treated on a niggardly and lower scale. I have reason to believe that that is correct, and it forms a sufficient ground for objecting to this £10,000 which has been proposed. We have grown accustomed to refugees all over the world, and I am confident there will be a considerable amount of sympathy for these persons from all sections of the House. We do not desire to repress the efforts of the Government
to deal fairly and squarely with these refugees from Ireland. It is unfortunate that at this time of day we should have so much of this type of thing. We know with regard to some refugees that there, is a very great amount of gross waste of public money. We have instances of the refugees in Egypt. While the people who are contributing the money are living from hand to mouth, these refugees have something like £4 per week. That is being paid to the Russian refugees, and I want to know what sums are being paid to these Irish refugees, and upon what line are sums credited. It is stated that some of them arc receiving large amounts and others very small amounts. It has been stated here that, although we are not going to get back all the money, at least a considerable amount of it is to be returned. There are many Members in this House who would like to know what are the safeguards for the repayment of this money. It is the old story of the British taxpayer being called upon to pay this money, and it will only come back if the Government have sufficient control. A considerable amount, it-is said, is to be paid by the recipients. What are the safeguards for the repayment of this money by individual recipients, and upon what ground has it been decided that some of these recipients shall repay the money and that others shall not? Take the money which will be placed upon the Provisional Government. What are we getting upon this money which we are paying to the refugees? Are we going to receive, from those capable of repaying, not only the principal but the accumulated interest upon that principal? Are we going to receive from the Provisional Government, not merely the proportion of principal for which they are responsible but a reasonable and fair amount of interest upon it? There is another point. I do not know whether there are many Members on the other side of the House who have had
individuals from Ireland settled in their neighbourhood. We have had a considerable number around Glasgow. I have already expressed my sympathy for Irish refugees, and I know genuine cases deserving of more than has been given to them. But has the Government taken care to find out whether the individuals they have been assisting—many of them on a generous scale—are really refugees from Ireland or people who have left their country for their country's good? Are they sure they have not been supporting individuals who desired to leave Ireland, and gladly and willingly took this opportunity to come to this country I What I have said constitutes a sufficient body of reason why we should at this time, when we are trying to economise, and when there is not a single individual in this House who has not thundered from the platform to his constituents his determination to economise even in small matters of expenditure—and when we have already passed a few millions—why we should not here and now demand full details even with regard to this £10,000? We demand information as to where it is going; how it is being spent, and what safeguards there are for repayment; whether due and careful attention has been paid to these questions, and whether the people who are receiving the money are really refugees. For these reasons I beg to move that this sum be reduced by one hundred pounds.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," is already before the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to ask the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider a further question. A question has been asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood): What is the Southern, or Provisional, Government doing to provide this? He was given an answer to that question, but he also asked what the North was doing? He received no answer to that simple and direct question.

Sir S. HOARE: I will answer the hon. Member at once. Negotiations are now going on. There has never been the least suggestion that the Northern Government will not meet their obligations in this respect.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is rather peculiar that the South, whose numbers I am led to believe were far larger than those of the North, could come to an agreement while the North are still negotiating. It seems to me that the South have come through a period of worse trial than that of the North. They have had to face difficulties that are not comparable with the difficulties in the North. Their Government has not got the stability that the North has got, and yet in spite of all that— [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would allow me to develop my argument. I am not experienced in Parliamentary matters and I feel rather tempted to reply, and I do not wish to get out of order. I intended to crack a little Scotch joke. I have a great deal of sympathy with the refugees, but I have a great deal more, Mr. Speaker, for you having to listen to the speeches. I feel somewhat deeply on this question because I worked in Belfast right up to the day of War breaking out, and I know somewhat of the conditions in Belfast and the North. It is rather peculiar to me that you have here the Provisional Government faced with difficulties that none of us here can really understand. The North have not those difficulties, and yet the South can come along and state in definite terms what the r money obligations are to this country while the North are still negotiating.
There is another important point I want-to raise. We are told that, in the North, Roman Catholics are going to receive equal treatment with those in the South. I want to challenge that. I want to say that many people who were driven out of Belfast during the dispute in the shipyards because of their religious opinions, and in other cases because of their political beliefs, have in some cases not received the same compensation as some of those to whom right hon. Gentlemen opposite referred during the last week or two. I am on the executive of my union, and on this matter I am extremely serious. We had something like fourteen men, some of whom were Protestants, driven from their work. Our union, which is not a Government Department, in order to maintain these men in decency, out of our meagre funds paid them for twelve months their full wages. The Government have never applied the same principle of equity to the men driven from their work in the shipyards in Bel-
fast, as they have done to the wealthy landlords who lost their estates in the South.

Sir S. HOARE: They have applied exactly the same principle.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that something is due to the people in our locality? I represent a district to which a fair number of these people came. We had to help them from local funds, and I think that the local people who had to meet the commitments of those folks arc entitled to some compensation for the money they have expended. It is rather peculiar that we should be moving a reduction when we actually want to increase the expenditure. Only a week ago I was supporting the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in protesting against the Northern Government compelling us to pay £8,000 a year for a useless office when they might have spent the money to real advantage.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has gone beyond the limits of the Debate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I apologise. At that time we were pointing out that the money was being spent in a useless way, while it might have been used with advantage in giving some of these poor refugees better treatment. I join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. R. Murray). I am still unconvinced that the North is going to meet the claims at all. I think the North has no real desire to meet the claims, and I would like some proof before I believe to the contrary. My experience is that those people have got very little compensation from the North. Another point I would like to submit is that we ought to try and insist on employers taking these men back to the work that they formerly did.

Mr. SHORT: I think we are entitled to ask that consideration of this Estimate should be adjourned. In the first place, I have to complain that there is really nobody on the Front Bench who can speak with adequate knowledge on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member who is really in charge of this Estimate knows little or nothing about it, and he has handed over the job of replying to the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: He was Chairman of the Committee.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. SHORT: No doubt, and he performed his work in an able manner, but he has resigned the Chairmanship of the Committee to take office in the Government. By that fact the Government has a spokesman on the Front Bench who knows something about the subject, otherwise we should have had the spectacle of an ordinary Member of the House in the person of the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies replying to the criticisms of the Opposition. That is not a proper position for the House to be put in. Someone on that bench ought to be officially told off to represent the Government and to state the case for the Government in its defence. The hon. and gallant Member has tried to make out a case to justify the action of the Government. We have no fault to find with any financial assistance given to the refugees, providing that the distress is real and urgent, and that there is sufficient grounds for the expenditure of the money. On that point the hon. and gallant Member has not given us any real evidence. He has made a statement which appeals to the sentimental feelings of Members rather than a statement which appeals to the judgment and intelligence of the House. Then when he comes to deal with Northern Ireland he says that this matter is still under negotiation. What does he mean by that? What arc they negotiating about?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is now repeating a speech which one of his colleagues has delivered.

Mr. SHORT: I did not think I was repeating any statement made by any of my friends on these Benches. At the moment I was quoting a remark of the hon. Member that negotiations were proceeding with the Northern Government of Ireland. What I want to know from the hon. and learned Member if he is officially representing the Government is, What are they negotiating about? How far have these negotiations proceeded, are we nearing a settlement of the question, and when shall we learn authoritatively that the Northern Government intends to recognise its obligations in this matter and to provide for these refugees? I associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker. I know something of the dis-
ability the workmen have suffered in being driven from the shipyards of Belfast upon religious grounds, as I understand, and the Government ought either to see that these refugees are adequately and fairly provided for or some action ought to be taken to ensure their return with speed and rapidity to the shipyards. When these Estimates come before the House it is our duty to

endeavour to get such information as will satisfy us and enable us to go into the Lobby feeling that we can vote in accordance with our judgment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 92.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[2.5 a.m.


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Goft, Sir R. Park
Paget, T. G.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Greene. Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrehce 
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipson, H. H.


Barlow, Fit. Hon. Sir Montague
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.


Sarnett, Major Richard W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Becker, Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hancock, John George
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harrison, F. C.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Brass, Captain W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brittain, sir Harry
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hinds, John
Sandon, Lord


Bruton, Sir James
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shepperson, E. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hood, Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, Sir Allan M, (Croydon, South)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Houlton, John Plowright
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sparkes, H. W.


Clayton, G. C,
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sutcllffe, T.


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Thornton, M.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lamb, J. O
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Wallace, Captain E.


Ednam, viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt Hon. Sir P.
Warne, G. H.


Elvedon, Viscount
Lort-Williams, J.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Wells, S. R.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lumley, L. R.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Windsor, Viscount


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Winterton, Earl


Fildes, Henry
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wise, Frederick


Flanagan, W. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wolmer, Viscount


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murchison, C. K.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nall, Major Joseph



Furness, G. J.
Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Flnehley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES ߞ


Garland, C. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Barnston


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee. C. R.
Broad. F. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Amnion, Charles George 
Bonwick, A.
Brotherton, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Pringle, W. M. R.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buckle, J,
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.


Burgess, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Cairns John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Darbishire, C. W,
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Sullivan, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Entwlstle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) 


Fairbairn, R. R.
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
Welsh, J. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, w.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardle, George D.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Hastings, Patrick
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hay, Captain J. p. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herriotts, J.
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Morgan


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Jones

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 81.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[2.11 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Houfton, John Plowright


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Hudson, Capt. A


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hurd, Percy A.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Fairbairn, R. R.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Flldes, Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Flanagan, W. H.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Foot, Isaac
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Becker, Harry
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lamb, J. O.


Berry, Sir George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Furness, G. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Garland, C. S.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Blundell, F. N.
Gates, Percy
Lort-Williams, J.


Bonwick, A.
George, Mafor G. L. (Pembroke)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lumley, L. R,


Brass, Captain W.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mercer, Colonel H.


Bruton, Sir James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murchison. C. K.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nail, Major Joseph


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hancock, John George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clayton, G. C.
Harrison, F. C.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hawke, John Anthony
Paget, t. g.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Cope, Major William
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George


Darbishire, C. W.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Phillipps, Vivian


Doyle, N. Grattan
Hinds, John
Philipson, H. H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Ednam, Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Remer, J. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waring, Major Walter


Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Sparkes, H. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Spender-Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H.
Wells, S. R.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Russell, William (Bolton)
Sutcliffe, T.
Windsor, Viscount


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Winterton, Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wise, Frederick


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sandon, Lord
Thornton, M.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Shakespeare, G. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Shepperson, E. W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sinclair, Sir A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain E.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Herrlotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Amnion, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, C. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Rltson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich;


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brotherion, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buckle, J.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephen, Campbell


Cairns, John
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Davtes, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McLaren, Andrew
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Middleton, G.
Wheatley, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Muir, John W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardle, George D.
Newbold, J. T. w.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Patrick
Nichol, Robert



Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Mr. R. Murray and Mr. Buchanan.


Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. AMNION: I beg to move to leave out "£340,000" and to insert instead thereof "£339,900."
It is with a mixture of regret that one moves to reduce this Vote by £100. In particular to call attention to the disparity of treatment accorded to those who have suffered under the collapse of this particular bank and the treatment accorded to those who were victims of the collapse of other banks under somewhat similar circumstances some time since. I think it will be permissible, without transgressing the Rules of the House, that one may call attention to the well-known banks which have collapsed recently, namely, the National Penny Bank in 1914 and Farrow's Bank in 1920. In both cases these were brought to the attention of the then Government who were then asked what help they were prepared to give, if any, to meet the needs of
the victims who were dispossessed by the bank failures. Replying to Mr. Dawes on 27th August, 1914, Mr. Runciman, who was then representing the Board of Trade, said that they had no power whatever to give any assistance in any way to those who had been victimised by the failure of the Penny Bank. That same point was raised again by an hon. Member who now graces the Treasury Bench, who sought, if possible, to get some help from the then Government for the victims of that particular bank collapse. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs replied that, much as he sympathised, unfortunately they had no power whatever to help them, and he learned that the bank had made some arrangement to pay something like 5s. in the £. Then we had the case of the collapse of Farrow's Bank. That was also discussed in this House, and Mr. Mills, who then represented the Dart-ford Division, called attention by private notice on 30th December, 1920, and asked what help the Government were prepared
to give in that particular case. He was then replied to by the Member for Birmingham West Division, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he regretted that they had no power whatever, much as he deplored the widespread hardship, to help the depositors in this particular case. That was again referred to in this House, when the subject came up for discussion, and the same hon. Member, Mr. Mills, raised the point which was again dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who replied then:
The affairs of the bank are now in the hands of the Official Receiver and, as the House is aware, legal proceedings have been now taken.
He replied to the same effect that they were unable to give assistance. The parallel between this case and the others is this, that we have been informed in this House that there had been no balance sheets published or any statements of account so far as McGrigor's Bank was concerned until they were compelled by Parr's Bank some time ago to bring forward a balance sheet. We have heard a great deal in this House about the advantages of private enterprise. Here is a particular case of private enterprise which has failed in the very ordinary matter of providing proper balance sheets and statements of account. Had it been a State bank there would have had to be statements of account and of deposits, and we should not have been in this position or the state of affairs would have been discovered sufficiently early to protect the depositors. It has been stated here that no liability rests on the Exchequer for the banking business of Army agents, which is entirely distinct from their duties as Army agents, and that they are in no sense under Government control, but that the Government are prepared to make ex gratia payments to Army officers and others whose losses arose out of the bank's position as Army agents. They are to make up a dividend of 10s. in the £. It is this sort of treatment—I am not suggesting that it arose deliberately in the minds of the Government—that gives rise to the statements outside that this House is largely moved by class considerations. Although it has been alleged against those on this side of the House by those on the other side of the House that we stand for what are
called class distinctions, as a matter of fact this side has always been on the defensive, and what is called the class war has always been waged by those on the other side of the House. You have here a particular instance. I am not going to say that provision should not be made for these gallant Gentlemen who have lost their money by its being invested in this bank, yet we have a very distinct case to put that there is no consideration whatever given to ordinary working men and women who have put all their life savings in other banks. In the last case the failure of Farrows Bank, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that the Government knew for some time before that that bank was in a very precarious position, yet no steps were taken to safeguard the interests and protect the savings of the unfortunate people who were let down on that occasion. Many hon. Members on both sides can give heartrending stories of how people had put the whole of their life savings into that particular bank against a rainy day and how those savings were washed away, and there was nobody to give them any sympathy.
Surely this demonstrates that the Government ought to give an assurance to this House that they will take steps to see that all banks have public statements of accounts and balance sheets which will be open to Government auditors at any time to come in and examine and make quite sure that the assets and the interests of the customers are adequately safeguarded. I am glad to have the approval of the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise), who is considered an expert on matters of finance, and I hope he will emphasise to Members oh the other side of the House the necessity of taking these precautions. We are brought to this position that, when we have a bank failure in which the victims are mostly Army officers more intimately concerned with the majority party in the House, then some steps can be taken to meet the hardships under which they are suffering, while no thought is given when the failure of a bank affects four or five times as many people. They get nothing but sympathy. I move the reduction of this Vote to call attention to the position, and I hope we shall get some statement
that the Government will consider bringing in the necessary legislation to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, a similar collapse. Here we have a case where this bank never published any accounts, yet no steps are taken to bring those people to justice. Surely they are responsible for their negligence, which is equally criminal with the guilt of people who rob others of their money. It is criminal because people are suffering owing to their failure to carry out their duty, not only to the depositors, but to the Government, for whom they acted as agents. The Government cannot shelve their responsibility. They failed to see that their agents were looking after their interests and that their customers were safeguarded. It is no good saying that no responsibility rests on the Exchequer for the banking business of Army agents. Surely the Exchequer are responsible for having persuaded Army officers, through the confidence they had in the Government, to deposit their money with these people. The answer, I suppose, will be that the Government are recognising their responsibility by this Vote. It raises the whole question of differentiation of treatment. The fact that you have recognised responsibility in this particular case draws a sharp demarcation between the different classes of depositors concerned. I hope the Government will assure us that they will bring in the necessary legislation to safeguard the interests of depositors in banks and to maintain public confidence, so that the banking business of this country, which has stood high, and does stand high, may not be shaken to its foundations by the cumulative failure of banks one after the other.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to second the Amendment.
I must also draw the attention of the House to the principles which are expected to be observed by the constitutional Government or, in fact, by any body of men standing as trustees of public funds, and these principles seem to me to be quite openly violated in this Grant. In the first place, it is an extremely difficult position to charge a body of honourable men with any bad motives or bad intentions, but a certain place and the British House of Commons are both paved with good intentions. That does not help anyone. Our actions must be
such that they not only remain above suspicion, but that they are in conformity with the principles that we desire to enforce upon the public as a governing House. It has been pointed out that there have been other bank failures. The difference between the other bank failures and this bank failure appears to be, as far as one can judge from the Supplementary Estimate, that these are mostly members of the military Service. I put it that, because they are members of the Army Service, is the greater reason why the Government should not, on sound principle, make this Grant, when in the case of private customers of private banks they have openly refused to do so. After all, is there not a very close connection between the civil Government of the country and the Army that supports the Government and keeps it in its position? This means that the civil Government and the Army which form a close fraternal union in the State are willing to scratch each other's backs, but they are not acting in the same manner when people lose their money who are not part and parcel of themselves. That is the obvious conclusion. In the case of banks where the subscribers were a poorer class of the public, and who from a financial position were in need of greater assistance than the present set of investors, the Government were drawing the distinction simply because it was the other arm of the Government whom they considered it advisable to help, whereas they did not help the others. There is another consideration. We have seen how emphatically on two previous occasions the Government refused, not only all liability, but even their liability of the soundness of the principle to help the ruined shareholders and depositors of other banks, especially in the case of the Penny Bank. I submit that the depositors had a claim at least, not only upon our sympathy, but upon the moral support of the State. Essentially that class of poor depositors were a class who were not highly educated, who were not supposed to understand all about banking, all about the soundness or otherwise of a bank, or of the status of the directors and persons who formed that bank. Here the position is quite a different one. Generally speaking we may take it that the depositors who have suffered here are people who ought to have known better and had acted wrongly through
perhaps the motive of making a higher profit by dealing with this bank than by investing their money elsewhere. They could not plead that ignorance and that inability to understand their business which the depositors of the Penny Bank could very well plead.
Another principle underlying this Grant appears to me to be almost a startling precedent. Personally, I do not mind that the Members who are in a majority in this House should go to the constituencies a month ago and proclaim the merits of private enterprise, and when they get into power, and when they find themselves and their friends in a very tight corner through the glories of private enterprise, that then they should rush to a scheme of Socialism for safety and emancipation. Personally, I do not regret it, but, as a matter of principle, taking the Government as it is formed, and taking the Government as the people of this country desire it to be, I think it is exceedingly wrong for the Government to trifle with the money of the public in this fashion. If you look at the nature of the Grant itself, what does it mean? It is paying a premium on gambling. It is rewarding those who take part in a swindle, because, after all, though we may sympathise—

Sir A. HOLBROOK: On a point of Order. I think it is unfair of the hon. Member to charge officers of the Army of being concerned in the swindle. That is what I object to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SAKLATVALA: When the money disappears, it disappears either through gross negligence or through swindling directly by those who are in control of these moneys. There is not the slightest question in my mind whether one party directly swindles the depositors or another set of swindlers in the way of private enterprise. What I beg to point out and what I do point out, is that the Government, by this action, are paying a premium on this system of swindling, because we must remember that in private enterprise, as constituted by law and carried on in an orderly manner, both parties are guilty either of negligence or of encouraging fraud, if not of practising it. The depositors who deposit their money in a concern and do not make proper investigation as to the nature of the soundness of that concern, as to the
business ability of the heads of that concern, who are careless of going to that concern from time to time to demand proper accounts and analyse the affairs of that concern, are, themselves, a danger to society and especially, I should say, a danger to society composed of private enterprisers. It is a public duty, if it is not a personal duty, of every depositor in a money concern under a system of private enterprise, which always encourages sharp practice, it is the public duty of every investor in a private enterprise to very carefully and analytically search into the conduct and condition of those persons responsible for conducting the industry; and the depositors of this particular concern, having failed in that personal duty as well as that public duty, have themselves been responsible for the very thing which has come to them and their deposits. The Government now comes and says, "Oh, never mind; we are at your back, because most of you are akin to us in your social and economic conditions, and because most of you are followers of our politics, we are friends, we are one and the same; we will get you out of the trouble," whereas, the self-same Government and the self-same country once upon a time refused to bring out of trouble a much poorer class and a much poorer set of depositors when they lost their money. But we are told, in a very indirect and vague manner, as if there is some thought of a liability hanging upon the Government, that this bank was something like a double-faced Janus. It turned to the Army officers and said to them, "I am your agent; give me your money." Then it turned to the other side and became a speculative banker, and gambled or did what it pleased with the moneys of the depositors. The Government, therefore, feel that, when they look at this particular concern from its banking face, they cannot easily forget its agency face. But that is the greater reason why the responsible Government ought not to take this step of granting money. I should suggest that they ought to take steps to save the depositors as a compensation for having brought them into the dangerous position, but they ought not to have done so from public funds. I appeal to you; supposing the Government was in a position of a director of a concern, what would have been your position? The
Government here are distinctly negligent themselves, because they have appointed as Army agents, or sanctioned the working as Army agents, of a certain party who, as results have proved, were unworthy of being put in that position. The Government victimised the Army officers by inducing them to deposit their money with a concern with which otherwise, perhaps, they would not have entrusted so much. The Government are helping themselves. I use that word with due apology. The Government are helping themselves with public funds in order to make up a loss to innocent people, the burden of which they feel upon their conscience as private human beings.
I submit very seriously to this House, what would be the position of the same Ministers if they found themselves placed in a condition like this; were they the directors of a concern. We have recently seen some scandalous affairs attaching to banking corporations where directors have by their negligence brought a loss upon innocent depositors or those who have had dealings with the concern. The Courts of Justice, constitutionally, made demand that these directors put their hands into their own pockets and make up the loss. That is the moral law. But if the Government sitting in Parliament says that they must make up the loss with the avowed enterprise of protecting them, it was setting a bad example and degrading the dignity of the House. The Government appointed these people as Army agents, and their appointment was inducive to the depositors going to this particular concern and not only going to this particular concern—[An HON. MEMBER: "But coming back!"]—but remaining very careless as to the modes of operation of this concern, thinking that as these were Army agents they would be safe. When it comes to the Ministers that the burden lies upon them, they ought to take some other means of raising this money, themselves or their friends, to defray these losses, but they ought not to touch money belonging to the public. I submit that we, as a Parliament and as a public, should be able to take Ministers to law and make them refund this money. We have heard about private enterprise. This case more than any other distinctly proves that what we know to be private enterprise is certainly private, but is always devoid of the spirit
of honest enterprise. Private enterprise appears to me to be that moneys and properties belonging to others are dealt with in privacy, the profits accruing therefrom being pocketed by those who call themselves private enterprisers, and when their recklessness or carelessness or inability, or even their dishonesty, brings the whole thing to ruin, the position of the present Government is that the taxpayer is called upon to reimburse the losers. If this scheme passes—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will!"]—I wonder how many more banking concerns will be encouraged to "mushroom" up to-morrow in this country? If this grant be made to reimburse the losses of foolish and negligent depositors, giving back to them, a substantial assistance, after their remaining negligent, of their own ordinary interest, I wonder whether we are giving a lesson to the public to be more careful after a failure like this or are we giving a lesson to the public not to worry about carefulness, that the State is always at their back to make up their gambling losses, and that they can gamble away? These are Army officers. Had they no Post Office Savings Banks or were they too superior and too rich and aristocratic to go to the savings banks alongside the poor people? If they were too rich and too aristocratic to do that, why did they come with their hats to the British taxpayer? Were these the patriotic gentlemen of Great Britain who were putting their placards and posters on the walls, published and printed from public money, "Put in your 15s. 6d. and it will be 25s. 6d."? Why do not they practise what they preach? Why did they come to this private bank for the deliberate purpose of speculating on a larger scale? All the bait you held out to them did not draw them even when that bait was steeped in the more attractive honey of patriotism. No appeal seems to have gone forth to these depositors at the time they were depositing their money that there were other channels open to them.
What does that indicate? It distinctly indicates that they had some spare money about which they were not really verymuch concerned and with which they thought it possible to take a gamble in a so-called bank. It points to the fact that, while the Army itself is underpaid, the Army officers are paid more than was needed for their daily life, and that accounts for the large
deposits in a certain concern in which they had no business to deposit any money. Secondly, it shows that the Army officers being well provided for with more liberal compensation than the old age pensioner gets in this country, were very unconcerned as to what really happened to their savings, and they wanted laterally to gamble with it rather than save it in a State Savings Bank. The whole question is that there is no real financial need. This time it is not the failure of the needy and the poor ones; it is not the failure of those who would be dragged to the gutter absolutely in their old age by having lost these fortunes. This is money belonging to a class of officer who evidently, after living fairly well—[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] From the very fact that the State issued this money. They got it exactly from the same Government that starved the Tommy. They got this money after living on a much higher scale than the ordinary soldier and the ordinary average working-class man of this country, and they were so backed up by a system of pensions and so confident about it that they did not consider it necessary to take the ordinary care and precaution about saving this money for their old age. No one likes to lose money. Even we have seen millionaires, if they lost a few thousands, beginning to wail, and if they had to pay-Excess Profits they would cut off some of their benefactions. The richer they are the more unwilling they are to part with it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is getting very wide from the point now.

3.0 A.M.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I submit that, while they may feel the loss of their money, they cannot be classed with the people rendered destitute by the other failures, people who have now got to pass a hopeless future in their old age without any means of support or livelihood, as was the case with the depositors in the Penny Bank. There is no particular reason, from a financial point of view, for the State to come with public funds and help them to the extent of £340,000 at a time when the Government have no money ' for the men whose women and children have anxious moments to find a piece of bread for next morning. From a moral point of view, the Government
have not made out any particular case for this grant. Men are responsible for the way in which they invested their money in a concern conducted in a very indifferent manner, and in which no cautious man would have kept his money for any considerable time. Considering the moral responsibility of the Government, that it was their own Army agents who had done it, I think that the responsible persons in the Government themselves, with the assistance, if they are too poor, of their rich friends, should have a donation fund, instead of paying compensation from the public funds because of their own negligence in dealing with a party that was not worthy to be dealt with. These are considerations which can go directly against making such a grant from public funds. We are told there are no precedents for such a grant being made. The Government are not only making the public pay £340,000, but they are not making the public learn a costly lesson. Instead, they are, by making this grant, setting a bad example of appointing wrong Army agents for depositors to go ahead and gamble as they please, giving a premium to bankers who want to play fast and loose with the depositors' money, knowing there will be no public howl about it, but that a generous Government will come forward and help them with public money. They are also giving a bad example to the Army, which is maintained by the State, by showing by this grant that Army officers are not required to be cautious and thrifty. They are not of the people. They are not to go to the State arrangements for saving money in the Post Office banks. They are permitted to gamble. If they make a profit, the profit will be theirs. If they make a loss, the loss will be borne by the taxpayer.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): I am sure the hon. Gentleman who moved and seconded the Reduction will not think me discourteous if I do not reply to their arguments at this particular moment. They will be replied to later in the Debate and I am doubtful if I can reply to all the remarks of the last speaker. I am not sure if I could do it in the sunshine and I am quite certain I cannot do it at this late hour. I shall try to make some statement as to the reason why we want the money and what
we propose to do with it. The money, I am hound to admit, is for an unusual Estimate. I sincerely hope that I shall never have to present such an Estimate again and that no one who follows me will have to do that either. The Estimate provides for the relief of certain sufferers by the failure of Messrs. McGrigor's Bank, who were Army agents and bankers. It is proposed to make an ex gratiâ payment towards the losses of Army officers and others whose connection with the bank occurred through their connection with the firm as Army agents, and the sum required to pay a 10s. dividend to such customers over and above whatever is received by the liquidation of the assets by the Official Keceiver is estimated to amount with the costs of distribution to £340,000. The assistance which the Government proposes to render is in the shape of an ex gratiâ payment.
It is desirable that I should at once try and make it dear that no liability rests upon the Exchequer for the banking business of their Army agents. It is entirely distinct from their other duties, and is in no sense whatever under Government control. There have been several occasions when Army agents and their responsibilities have been considered during the last 50 years. In 1881, on the re-organisation of the Army, the duty of appointing agents was taken away from the colonel of the regiment, and the duty fell upon the War Office. The appointment of the then existing agents was continued by the War Office for the purpose of issuing pay to officers unless they elected to be paid by the Paymaster. In 1888 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the Financial Secretary required to be convinced that the system of agents was a good one, that it was a sound one, and they actually brought up the question of terminating the system altogether. Up to 1892 the agents received a commission of approximately 1½ per cent. on disbursements they made to officers. In 1890 the agents, Messrs. Cox, Holt, and McGrigor, offered to do the duties without any charge to the public, and at the same time gave security for the proper performance of their duties as Army agents. The amount of security was for Messrs. Cox £50,000, Holt £10,000, and McGrigor £5,000. In approving this arrangement the Treasury laid it down that there was no obligation upon any officer to draw his pay through
an agent, but if he preferred to do so, the responsibility must rest with him. It went on further to say that if these firm6 were re-appointed it should be understood that this implied no guarantee of their solvency or a desire by the Secretary of State to induce any officer to employ it. There was a Debate in 1909, and Mr. Acland, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, made this statement:
It is not the case that these agents have a monopoly and that officers are compelled to keep their accounts with them. If any officer requested us at any time to transfer his account to any other bank we should at once do so on being satisfied that the bank had his power of attorney.
In Army Council Instructions on the Pay Warrant, Article 421, it is laid down that a regimental officer at home or abroad may receive his pay either through the regimental agent or through the Paymaster as he may elect. I quote this to make it as clear as I can that this decision had been come to by various Governments from time to time. They have been construed over a period of 50 years to mean that no liability can possibly rest upon the Exchequer for the banking business of their agents. I think the House will agree that for the War Office to lay down or even suggest that officers should be obliged to bank with the agents and that they were not free to do what they liked would be quite absurd. The War Office have acted under these instructions and decisions and they have not considered it desirable that they should make close inquiries of these firms or take balance sheets. If they had gone to these banks and demanded an audit they would undoubtedly have had to assume control, which would have meant responsibility for the solvency of the bank. I come now, if I may, to the question of moral obligation which the Government have decided to assume. No doubt, since 1914, when the War intervened, a very considerable alteration of circumstances occurred. As far as the professional Army is concerned, the traditional knowledge of individual responsibility as regards nay could be generally relied upon. But there was a tremendous influx of thousands of new officers in the War strange to Army ways and conditions, and that in itself very much altered the whole thing, and there is no doubt, in my judgment, that the present system has been a very strong inducement for these officers to open a
banking account for the first time with the agents. There was no time for these young officers to make themselves acquainted with the Regulations and with the responsibility they had. It is a matter, I think, of particular interest that the largest number of sufferers in the failure of this firm are persons in the McGrigor's payment as temporary officers during the War. The total number was about 5,000, and the average balance at the bank was only £64. I have no doubt whatever that a very strong case is made out, and it appears to impose an obligation on the Government which the Government have decided to accept. There were other officers on half-pay and retired officers on whose behalf McGrigor's drew on the Paymaster-General under their power of attorney given by the officers. Pensions were drawn from McGrigor's and there were widows of officers who carried on their husbands' account. There were also children of officers who were receiving compassionate allowance.
I am sure the House will naturally wish to know what steps have been taken to prevent any possible repetition of this terrible calamity. It is not proposed to alter the system of agents. After most careful consideration, its maintenance is considered desirable in all respects. In the first place it is an extremely convenient system for officers that prefer it and there is no doubt the agents have done a great deal, especially during the War, which the War Office could not have done. As an illustration of the opinion of officers, I may give the following case. When the Air Service was established every officer was written to and asked whether he would prefer to draw his pay from the regimental agent or from the Paymaster. The result was that only 5.8 per cent. preferred to draw their pay from the Paymaster. I am informed that since that time a considerable number of this 5.8 per cent. transferred to the agents. The second reason is that it is extremely economical from the War Office point of view. There is no charge on the public. During the War Messrs. Cox and Holt between them issued pay to 356,000 officers. They employed 900 clerks at a cost of £814,000. If the War Office were to do the work, I leave the House to make an estimate of its cost. There is one other thing. There is the existing contract which lasts until 1932 and of course you
will realise that the cancellation of that contract with the agents would mean a very considerable compensation.
I think it is obvious, after what has recently occurred and what has caused the presentation of this Estimate, it is necessary in the interests of the persons concerned, the Government who pay, the agents who issue the pay to the officers, and the officers who draw the pay, that their individual responsibilities should be clear and absolutely unmistakeable in the future. Balance sheets, properly audited, will, I think, undoubtedly be required. They will have to be produced with regularity, and they will have to be examined by the War Office, who will have to be satisfied with them. I think that it is also desirable that clear intimation should be given that every officer is free to draw his pay direct from the Paymaster or from the agents as he may wish. If blame is to be attributed to any quarter in connection with this trouble, I think it may be placed to a very large extent upon the old established custom that the War Office had no reason to be interested in the banking of their agents and that this old custom has been too rigidly adhered to. In view of the consideration which was given by various Governments, over long periods, to this question, and which resulted in invariably the same conclusion being arrived at, the custom was considered as definite and fixed. Messrs. Cox and Holt publish balance sheets available to the public, and I should like to take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear that these have been carefully considered by the War Office and that they have seen no reason to raise any question whatever upon them.
I should like to inform the House how it is proposed to distribute the grant, if the House should agree to it. We have arranged with the liquidator in view of the urgency of the matter to distribute the Government grant. He will do it as-early as possible. As to those of whose right to share in the distribution there is no question, I should like to give a list. They are: serving officers, officers in receipt of half or retired pay, officers' widows and dependants in receipt of pensions, officers' children in receipt of compassionate allowances, and persons who were in payment as officers in the Great War and continued to bank with the firm after relinquishing their commissions. As
regards others, whose position as customers of the bank arose out of connection with the firm as Army Agents, it will be necessary for them that they should submit their claims for consideration, and in order to secure the greatest impartiality in dealing with this question it is the intention of the Secretary of State to set up a small Committee to adjudicate upon them. The Committee will consist of Lord Askwith and one representative from the Treasury and one from the War Office. The Committee will sit forthwith. I wish that the first Esimate which it has fallen to my lot to present to the House should have been for expenditure incurred in less unfortunate circumstances. I hope that the House will agree that the Government have done right in coming to the assistance of those who, from their connection with the Army and its agents, have been sufferers from this terrible calamity.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I do not intend to support the Amendment in spite of what has been said from the benches behind. With a good deal of the argument in support of the Amendment I do not agree. I think that we are indebted to the Government for the fair statement of their intention which they have laid before the House. Nevertheless, I venture still to make some criticisms. When this matter was dealt with in the Committee stage, I think it was understood that it would be again brought forward at a time when it could be better discussed than it can be now. It is quite true that there may be lucid intervals even in all-night Sittings and points of substance may even then occasionally arise. I do not quarrel with the Government for suggesting that there is a moral liability; I think it might be put higher than they choose to put it. They are ready to shoulder up to 10s. in the £. Anyone who has considered the situation would admit that in a Court of Law there would be no legal liability. That is clear. The Treasury have safeguarded themselves by taking up a position which clearly could not have been known to those officers. These agents were supplied with, I believe, note paper headed "War Office" which they used in their agency business. The ordinary subaltern, promoted perhaps from the ranks, assumed that when his pay was paid through McGrigor's it was the ordinary course. A few officers
may have taken a different line. In addition, there were advantages. I believe that you got your pay quicker. If you had it put into your own bank you had the bother and trouble of reclaiming Income Tax; which I believe was not deducted in the other case. There were advantages given if the officers chose McGrigor's as their agents and, in these circumstances, if it were a private individual who had got himself landed with this kind of responsibility for the acts of agents, I would rather imagine that private individual would probably pay in full.
But that is not the main point. Hon. Members may have said that this is an illustration of the way in which private enterprise acts. I do not think that private enterprise, or the State, come out well in this matter. I do claim that there has been lax, negligent and casual administration by the Finance Branch of the War Office. It is all very well for the Government to say that it was an old policy and that they took no part and cared nothing for the solvency of their agents. They did take some precaution. They required in this case the totally inadequate security of £5,000. Why they should have asked that sum I cannot imagine. If anything went seriously wrong a small sum of that kind would be of no use. It is admitted that no published balance-sheets existed. It is now admitted that the Government and War Office should have seen these balance-sheets and they are going to do it now. They ought, undoubtedly, to have done it then. Here were masses of new officers coming into the field. They were being paid through this bank. It was an ordinary business precaution to require the state of the business. I do not say that they should have demanded that the balance-sheets should have been published. They ought to have seen them, but it does not necessarily follow that they should have satisfied themselves by an elaborate system of control as to the solvency of the bank concerned. I think, in the case of friendly societies and the trade unions, the Government does require that balance-sheets should be published, and I believe that that ought to have been done in this case, and that it is real negligence on their part not to have done it. Then I should like to know—did no whisper of the difficulties of this bank reach
the Finance Branch of the War Office during, say, the year 1921. I believe I am correct in saying that during that year McGrigors applied to be taken over by at least two banks, and they were refused. I suppose the War Office, washing its hands of any question of the solvency of its agents, kept themselves in isolation, but I should have imagined that some whisper of the difficulties in which this bank must have got must have reached them. At all events, had there been any real vigilance on the part of the Finance Branch of the War Office one might have expected something of that kind. Then, when we come to the actual moment when the bank came to the War Office—I suppose to the Finance Branch once more—and admitted that it was in difficulties, what happened? I should rather like to know. They were given a week to clear up their situation. During that week, undoubtedly, more money was paid into the bank. The Paymaster, who is not, we understand, under the War Office, paid in before the bank closed £13,000. Did it occur to the War Office that they might conceivably have warned the Paymaster-General that it was an unsafe thing to do? If the Government will not take full responsibility for the loss for which I think they admit moral responsibility, and where I think there is a case against them of real negligence—if they will not admit the whole liability, they ought to admit the liability for any monies paid in then. That ought to be paid in full, for clearly the first question they must have asked of the bank is, "Have you been to any other bank to take you over?" If they had done so, they would have been told that applications of that character were made to other banks and refused. I think I am correct in stating that.

Mr. BUCKLE: On a point of Order. Is this a usual method of doing business of this character, or is it a new game of patience we are learning?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is an old game of patience.

Mr. ROBERTS: I have not joined to-night in any of the discussions hitherto, and I have shown my view of the game that is going on by voting once or twice with the Government. Therefore, when I am dealing with a point of real substance I do not think I need be accused
of detaining the House a moment longer than I can avoid. The answer which the Government made as to their action on 6th October is that during that time £100,000 was paid in. That might be very desirable for the sufferers of the bank, but I confess it is a rather curious attitude for the Government to take up. Here was a bank which had been refused, I believe, by other banks, and the Government gives it a week to pull itself round, and apparently it allows a sum of £100,000 to go into the bank, when, I imagine, they must have had very grievous doubt as to the solvency of it. If it was a free gift, well and good, but if it was put in with a view to rescuing the bank from disaster, then I think it was a little hard on the person who provided the money. The whole story of this bank, and the lax and negligent and casual way in which the finance branch of the Army has dealt with it, does not inspire me with any very great confidence in the Finance Branch of the Army. The real moral of the whole story, I think, is—keep, if you like, this system of Army agents, but if you do so, keep it under more vigilant inspection and supervision, and with greater publicity than in the past. In fact, keep it on proper business lines. But I do think there ought to be an inquiry into the management of the whole system in the Army by this branch. It is a very expensive branch. I do not suppose I can go into that, but in 1913 it only cost £400,000. To-day, after the Geddes' axe, it costs £1,200,000, although the fighting men are less numerous than they were. I dare say there is a good deal of extra work to be carried out, but it does seem to me that there are other points, too. I think the system which is adopted now under which the head of the finance branch of the Army is a member of the Army Council is not at all satisfactory. I think it leads to a great deal of extravagance in the Army, and if we could get a real independent inquiry into the way in which the affairs of this branch of the Army are administered, I believe we should probably save a very large sum of money, and get back a good deal of the money which we are now having to vote. I think that when a disaster of this kind has occurred, when the State has to pay up at least £340,000, and when an equal loss falls upon a great number of people in poor circumstances, you ought to have an
independent inquiry. I know military men and others have suffered severely, and I urge that such an independent inquiry should take place.

Mr. LAWSON: rose—

MV. SPEAKER: Mr. Lawson.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Colonel Guinness.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I think, in view of the hour, it would be well to answer some of the criticism which has been brought forward on the action—

Mr. LAWSON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) does not wish to give way, I think he has the right to speak.

Mr. LAWSON: I have not intervened much in the Debates in the last week or two.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I rose only to save time.

Mr. LAWSON: I think at twenty minutes to four in the morning we are discussing a matter involving £340,000, and not only involving that amount but also a very grave decision which has disturbed the public mind very much. If there is any reason that could have been given for that decision and for discussing this matter of such great nature at this time of the morning it is, perhaps, the exceptionally clear exposition we have had from the hon. Gentleman who supported this subvention, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, an exposition which promises great things in view of the fact that it was very obvious he was not very much at ease in supporting this subvention of £340,000. He, however, said that he hoped he would never have to support a matter of this kind again, so that it was obvious he did not feel at all at ease. As a matter of fact, the further he went the clearer it was that he was not quite sure of his ground. He had made it very clear that the War Office had repudiated time and again all responsibility for any financial support of this kind in the case of the failure of a bank. I want to draw attention to one parti-
cular point which has been mentioned in a previous Parliament when Farrow's Bank failed. I well remember when the matter was raised in this House and, except for a few words of sympathy from the Prime Minister, the whole subject was treated with contempt by the House at that time. I submit that there is no more responsibiliy in this case than there was in the other case. I should not like to say anything that would hinder these, people from receiving consideration, but I do say there is ground for reconsidering the case of the people who were ruined by the failure of Farrow's Bank under this decision. What is the position? Farrow's subscribers and investors were considered. The matter came up while the House was in session, a full House. I think I am very well within bounds when I say that we on these benches were looked upon as semi-imbeciles because we asked the Government to support and consider these poor people. But in this case the House was not even in session. There was, so to speak, hardly any Government, and yet without any plea in the House, or before anyone knew anything about it, the War Office had taken a decision to come to the aid of these people to whom they thought they had an obligation and yet at the same time they clearly said that it is an ex gratiâ grant.
I want to put this point. Times are changing in this country. There are those of us who sit on these benches who use all the influence we can against class feeling and against bitterness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, we do; and those who know me befit know that I do. But I challenge anyone to deny that the decision that has been given in this case as compared with Farrow's has not behind it the class spirit. It is this of which we complain; it is the motive power behind the Government in settling this amount upon these officers. Let us face the situation. In this country there is a type of edcation which has behind it a good deal of snobbery I have fought, like other people, in the Elections quite recently. There was raised the question of miners' incomes and M.P.s' incomes, but when professional man were asked about their incomes, then they talked about libel. In this House we have the fellowship of all Members. It is one of the fine things in this House, but it is one of the dangerous things to British
society that there is a class spirit prevailing of which those Members on the opposite benches are representative. It is very dangerous to this country. This is the best test you can have of that statement, and the sooner the Government, whether this Government or any other Government, gets the true test, the test of justice and the test of right dealing with any class or any people, the better it will be for this country; but as far as I am concerned I shall not be moved by the statement given from the Government Benches from the conviction that there is no difference between the people who lost their money in Farrow's, and from whom we have received time and again letters of the most pathetic nature, and the Army people, except this, that they are considered to belong to another class and another profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no?"] I say yes. I believe the hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their convictions. I believe they think there is not any of the class spirit behind it. That is the tragedy of it. The people do not seem to see it. But we see it in our ordinary everyday lives, and the opinion is that this is a class decision.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like to answer a few of the criticisms that have been brought against the proposed Vote. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) suggests that there is no difference between the case of Farrow's Bank and the case of McGrigor's failure. I think he could only argue that if we were recommending payment in the case of McGrigor's to those customers who had no Army connection. The whole point of the grant we are making in the case of McGrigor is that of Army connection. The system of Army agents does encourage officers to form this connection, and the War Office recognised this when in 1892 they ceased to pay a commission of 1½ per cent. on the payments that were made. It was obvious that agents were not going to embark in this costly work unless they were going to get something in return, and there is no doubt that the inducement to accept; agency work was the Army connection which it would bring. But if you went beyond this ex gratiâ Grant I do not know where you would stop or how you would, for instance, resist the claim to pay up the shareholders in the Equitable Insurance Company. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr.
C. Boberts) suggested that we were not erring on the side of paying too much in view of the neglect of the War Office. I admit there must be very hard cases under the War Office decision, but in view of financial difficulties funds are necessarily in these times limited, and we have to do the best we can with the very generous sum placed at our disposal. Some will get considerably less than we would like them to get, while others will inevitably get more than their deserts. I believe the flat rate was the only way of getting any general agree ment—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that some of these people will get twenty shillings in the pound?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No; it is ten shillings in the pound. I was dealing with the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it is going to be very hard on some officers—I think the hon. Member for Derby instanced young officers—and that is why we have had recourse to the system of the flat rate. The suggestion is that the War Office has been remiss in not demanding further particulars as to the position of those agents as bankers, but, as has been already argued by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, you cannot put it higher than contributory negligence. Surely the customer was not absolved from his share of responsibility in seeing that the bank was solvent and taking the ordinary precautions. I think it is a very generous arrangement that, out of a possible loss of fifteen shillings in the pound, after a division of assets, the taxpayer is going, under our proposal, to assume two-thirds of the loss and leave only one-third to the customer who was also, to some extent, responsible. The Army agency system has been to the mutual advantage of the War Office and the individual officer. Both have shared the advantages, and surely it is not unreasonable that both parties should share the loss.
The hon. Member for Derby asks that an inquiry should be set up into the whole system of Army agency and War Office finance. I am sure he will not expect me to give an answer on so large a subject as that, without consulting my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, but I do not see on his case that there is any strong ground for such an examination.
The whole system is being very carefully inquired into. What would you get by further inquiry? I suggest that it is impossible to say who is responsible for the mistake, if mistake it was, that led to the recent failure. Was it the Secretary of State who renewed the contracts with these Army agents in 1909, taking effect in 1912 for 20 years? If not, was it one or all of his successors who, in spite of the fact that there was no reference to balance-sheets in the agreement between the Army agents generally and the War Office, failed subsequently to enforce a demand which had never previously been made? At exactly what stage was this balance sheet to be demanded? Remember that the publication of balance sheets has been a recent development. I have here the figures of bankers' returns, and I am informed there are still over 30 private banks who to this day do not publish balance sheets. It is very easy to be wise after the event, but if the War Office had during the currency of the agreement said, "We refuse to do business with any Army agent who does not produce a balance sheet," in spite of the fact that so many other banks of undoubted stability have not issued balance sheets and if they had proposed on this ground to break the contract, is it certain that, without our present knowledge, Parliament, would have backed them in what would have been, perhaps, a very expensive breach? I would point out that McGrigor's have been doing business with the War Office for 80 years without any complaint whatever, and I think the hon. Member for Derby is misinformed in his impression that McGrigor's had approached other banks with the proposal that they should be taken over. I understand the only foundation for that is that another bank suggested that they would like to amalgamate with McGrigor's, but McGrigor's would not consent to the proposed arrangement.
The hon. Member also raised the point of the £13,000 which was paid over by the Paymaster-General after McGrigor's first gave notice to the War Office that they were in difficulties. This sum was paid to McGrigor's, not as Army agents, but simply because they held power of attorney, as any bank holds power of attorney, to receive pensions and retiring allowances on behalf of those who had
been in the Army or related to officers. This power of attorney was given entirely in the interests of the pensioner by his own arrangement. I do not know if the War Office knew about it or not, because there was no need to give power of attorney. The machinery in this ease is for the beneficiary himself to lodge a life statement every month and a certified life statement every quarter to show that he is entitled, being still alive, to the allowance. He could send that straight to the Paymaster-General and get his cheque back, and he would get his money in that way quicker. But many pensioners and officers for their own convenience arranged with the bank that they should draw the money for them under power of attorney. That being so, these payments being in no way connected with the Army agency, I suggest that if the War Office had warned the Paymaster-General, there would have been equally grounds for warning every Government Department not to make any payments to McGrigor's under the circumstances.
4.0 A.M.
On 6th October, Sir Tames McGrigor came and interviewed representatives of the War Office in company with a representative of Holts and a representative of Cox's. He disclosed a deficit on his own valuation of far more manageable proportions that that which eventually was disclosed. The fact of the representatives of Holt's and Cox's being present was a very important factor, because it was put to them: "If the matter is not irretrievable, will you help?" and they agreed. The War Office would have been very unwise to have precipitated the crash and if they had sent round, not only to the Paymaster-General, but to all Government Departments saying, "Do not pay any money to McGrigor's," it is perfectly certain that the crash would have taken place immediately, and there was quite a reasonable chance at that time of McGrigor's being saved by amalgamation with other Army agents. Of course when the figures were arrived at by a new valuation, it became evident that nothing could be done and the War Office immediately took action in the interests of the officers.
There is one point which has not, perhaps, been fully realised, that the War Office really lost practically nothing in connection with this failure on that part of the work which directly concerned
them, the Army agency work these Army agents do not draw large sums in advance. They only draw on the last day of the month about enough to pay into officers' accounts on the first day of the next month, and the amounts outstanding is about £5,000, the difference between the amounts they received and paid in the next day. That is about covered by the security they lodged for this purpose. It was lodged not with any idea of guaranteeing the bankers' business in which these Army agents also engaged. I quite agree that an inquiry would be justified if there were any risk to public money in this agency system, but if it is once realised that the banking part of the business is not the Government's concern, and that the proposed ex gratiâ payment is not to be considered as a precedent, I do not think that that risk is of any appreciable size. The agents' books, so far as the Government is concerned, are open to inspection, and always have been. Not only can the War Office send down to look at the books, but they get an account every quarter showing the details of this agency work. I think it would be most inadvisable by saying anything at the present moment in favour of an inquiry to lead to any impression that we had the slightest doubt or anxiety as to the complete stability of the other Army agents. The past we have to regret and to wipe out, but it would be disastrous by anything we decide this morning to prejudice the system in the future. I believe that a Government inspection of the banking side of this agent's business would be most inadvisable, because anything short of a complete and effective control would only mislead the customers and would make the State liable not only for the agency but for the banking business to the uttermost penny in the event of failure. Balance sheets are now issued for the existing Army agents, which are public, and the House can study them and judge their financial position. It will be made clear to Army officers on joining that there is no obligation to open banking accounts with the Army Agents, but in view of the strong financial position of the existing agents, I do not for one moment believe any considerable change in the system of their acting as bankers for many officers will result owing to this information being brought more definitely to the notice of newly-
joined officers. I do feel strongly that the agency system should continue both for the convenience of the Service and the public.

Mr. HARDIE: I wanted to try and find out exactly what took place in this matter, and, in order to get some information, I was digging things out-to-day. The advertisement of the bank in question reads as follows:
Sir Charles McGrigor, Baronet, and Company, Army Agents and Bankers, 39, Panton Street, Haymarket, Partners, Sir James R. D. McGrigor, Baronet, Edward Albert Biss—
we have heard nothing about him in the House. [An HON. MEMHER: "Ho is dead!"] It states that the firm makes returns to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as London bankers. That is the point I wish to raise. It also states that its bankers are the London County Westminster and Parrs Bank Ltd., the National Provincial and Union Bank of England Ltd., Charing Cross, and that the Holder of Procuration is John Francis Jones, while the tragic part of the business is the telegraphic address, "Dream, London."
We do not want anyone to be misled by our opposition to this. In reply to a question, on 24th November, the Under-Secretary for War stated that the State had made a profit. What is the use at this time of day of men claiming to be business men bringing forward the argument that because you have made a profit you have a right to assume that it will not be any loss to the nation to take that profit and use it to wipe out a stupid mistake? If that principle is going to be carried out, as far as the Government is concerned, it ought to stretch back to the former Government to the question of the profits in other industries in which the Government had a really tangible interest in the form of control. If it is good to support it in this connection it must also be good to support the British miner's case. "We are not responsible for the bankers," so we have been told a hundred times since I came into the House three minutes ago. Yet we are assuming responsibility for the failure of a bank. [HON. MEMBERS: "An agent!"] That is what I am trying to get at. I have read you the advertisement. They are Army agents and bankers, and I have shown to you there are several agents with whom they bank.
It is for the Government's side to clear up this mess. We are not responsible for the private banks, and had we had a real business sense in this country none of the money belonging to the people would have passed outwith the Bank of England. McGrigor spelt with an "e" would be a Scotsman, but spelt with an "i" he belongs to the Northland across the seas. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Jew!"] The responsibility that is being assumed is unreal. The Government here have no responsibility for the failure of the bank, but we have a genuine responsibility for the unemployed now in this country; and if the Government is going to come to the aid of 50 per cent. of the loss of the Army officers, why cannot they come and pay half wages to the workmen? I will conclude with this:

that on the question of banking there has not been any enlightenment given such as ought to have been given by right hon. Gentlemen, who say we are still in darkness on this side of the House. Were I in the position to challenge anyone on the other side of the House as regards banking I would do so. I hope right hon. Gentlemen, in considering this matter, will give some undertaking that, so far as private banking is concerned, they are not in any way standing behind the failure of such institutions.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes,

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[4.13 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Paget, T. G.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblan[...]ue


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Penny, Frederick George


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Philipson, H. H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Halstead, Major D.
Raine, W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harrison, F. C.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Becker, Harry
Harvey, Major S. E.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Brass, Captain W.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Brassey Sir Leonard
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Houfton, John Plowright
Shepperson, E. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Sparkes, H. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Sutcliffe, T.


Cope, Major William
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lort-Williams, J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ednam, Viscount
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lumley, L. R.
Waring, Major Walter


Elveden, Viscount
Maione, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wells, S. R


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Windsor, Viscount


Flanagan, W. H.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murohison, C. K.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Furness, G. J.
Nall, Major Joseph



Garland, C. S.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J (Westminster)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Attlee, C. R.
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Bonwick, A.
Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brotherton, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute}
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buckle, J.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cairns, John
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Charieton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Thornton, M.


Duffy, T. Gavan
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Middleton, G.
Westwood, J.


Foot, Isaac
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Nichol, Robert
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian
Jones.

Question put accordingly, "That '£340,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 83.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[4.20 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Allen, Lieut.-Col, Sir William James
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Flanagan, W. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Ashley. Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lort-Williams, J.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Forestier-Walker. L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot
Lumley, L. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Furness, G. J.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Garland, C. S.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gates, Percy
Margesson, H. D. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mercer, Colonel H.


Becker, Harry
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Betterton, Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, C. K.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nall, Major Joseph


Blundell, F. N.
Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bonwick, A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Halstead, Major D.
Paget, T. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, F. C.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bruton, Sir James
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Penny, Frederick George


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Philipson, H. H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Raine, W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Clayton, G. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Houfton, John Plowright
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Hudson, Capt. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dunnico, H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Ednam, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sandon, Lord


Elveden, Viscount
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Skelton, A. N.


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor, Viscount


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Earl


Sparkcs, H. W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wise, Frederick


Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Waring, Major Walter
Verburgh, R. D. T.


Sutcliffe, T.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)



Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, C. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, C. H (Derby)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. [West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brotherton, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, F. w. (Bradford, East)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Buckle, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Charieton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
M'Entee, V. L.
Thornton, M.


Duffy, T. Gavan
McLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Foot, Isaac
Middleton, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, w.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.



Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.



Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [8th December].

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,070,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including a Grant-in-Aid.

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out "£1,070,000," and to insert instead thereof "£1,069,900."
It is rather unfortunate that at 4.30 in the morning we should be beginning a discussion on the most important topic which has taken up the time of this House in this short Session. The vote of money which we are now considering has to do with the question of unemployment, and I suggest to hon. Members that that great social fact with which we are all
face to face at the moment is not one which should be discussed in those circumstances and at this time. I do not for a single moment allege, because I do not think there is any truth in the allegation, that any hon. Member in this House is lacking in sympathy with the unemployed man and his dependents. After all, every one of us must know what it means to these people socially. We also know that they look to the House of Commons for some relief from the unfortunate situation in which, through no fault of their own, they now find themselves, and it is therefore peculiarly unfortunate that we should be discussing the subject at this moment in so attenuated a House with no very great prospect of any satisfactory solution. Before we separate for the Recess, whatever theories we hold about unemployment, we ought to try, if we can, to realise that between now and 13th February, or whatever date the House may resume, the great mass of those who are unemployed will be passing through a period when the great mass of the people of the country will be enjoying themselves over Christmas and the New Year. In addition, there is for the unemployed the
added irony that they cannot share in the good things of that season of the year. Therefore, I think, we ought to try to make some practical contribution to the problem. After all, what the unemployed man wants is work this morning. He also wants to know that, when he joins with his wife and children at the breakfast table there will be sufficient food to maintain himself and his family in physical efficiency, and destroy that pathetic feeling that every man must have who is faced with that situation. In that situation, it does not do for us to say that private enterprise has broken down. That may be quite true. Personally, I do not think that private enterprise has broken down so much as that the conditions under which private enterprise operates as a result of the War are exceptionally difficult. Private enterprise, whatever its faults may be, is not at the present moment operating under conditions which are favourable to its success. Let us put it no higher than that. That is no great comfort to the man who has not got any work, and that is not going to supply him with work. That is presenting the man with a stone when he is asking for bread.
On the other hand, you have the argument which has been put by many hon. Members that, if private enterprise were allowed a free field, you would create conditions under which unemployment would not be rife. Assuming it is true that private enterprise has broken down, this also is true that until you get in this House of Commons a majority of Members who represent that view, which means until you have educated public opinion up to the point that will send sufficient Members here to represent that view, that argument will not give the unemployed man any work either. There is the situation. I hope hon. Members on both sides will not misunderstand me. I am not arguing the pros and cons of the situation. I am only stating this, that when you have considered both these arguments, you have 1,500,000 people who have not got work. Therefore, the situation we have to address ourselves to at this time of the morning is: Have we done everything we can do to provide work? I am not going to engage in any unfruitful discussion. Everybody will admit straight away that until we settle the question of high policy there is a cause of a great deal of the unemployment that
exists. That, of course, cannot be done in sufficient time to help the unemployed now. We have passed the Trade Facilities Act; we have given credits for £50,000,000, which in its way is a contribution to the problem. But, after all, the effects of that will not percolate to the unemployed man sufficiently soon to enable him to get to grips with the poverty problem with which he is face to face. In these circumstances I have been asking myself—and I am only making this as a contribution to the Debate—if there is any immediate way in which we can do more for the unemployed man than we have been able to do by the contributions we have already made.
There are certain Members of the House who will remember that the Conservative Government, in 1905, passed an Act which was very much eriticisedi—which was not perfect by any means, and which did not last for very long—as an experiment. If I remember rightly, it certainly covered that particular winter. It was known as the Unemployed Workmen Act. The merit of that Act, if it had merit, and I think it had some, was that it did make a slight attempt to co-ordinate the agencies that dealt with unemployment. To-day we have too many agencies dealing with the problem of unemployment. There are city and borough councils, parish councils, boards of guardians, trade unions and Government schemes dealing with the subject. There are half a dozen, if not more, agencies all dealing with the same problem, to a large extent overlapping and probably not making the contribution they ought to make to the problem if they were coordinated. The main principle of the Unemployed Workmen Act was that you set up in every borough what was then known as a distress committee. I should like to say, parenthetically, that I do not thirl myself to these precise words or this precise Act; it is only the principle I am dealing with at the moment. Those distress committees had on them representatives from the city council, the board of guardians, and now, of course, there are other agencies such as the labour exchanges which could be got together. They sat down to this problem: How can we provide useful work in our borough for the man who is unemployed? I venture to suggest that in every borough of any size in this country there is municipal work which could be put into operation to-
morrow. I remember that at the time of this Act I happened to be the chairman of the distress committee in the City of York. We found a piece of work by which we were enabled to employ about 400 men for the best part of three months, levelling two playing fields in front of the girls' secondary school above the flood level of the river which they adjoined. We got a grant of money from the Government, if I remember rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong, the Government gave £100,000 to that particular scheme in 1905. Then we got money from the education committee of the York City Council for the improvement we made upon their fields. There is no great municipality which: could not put forward a great deal of its planting at this time of the year and so employ men. Every town could be made cleaner than it is, and could give labour straightaway in keeping the towns clean. These great national schemes involve the mobility of labour, and frequently if you move a man from his home you have to take into account the question of housing and you have to bear in mind the question of the separation of the man from his wife and family. But the work to which he had referred could be done at once without waiting, as we are bound to wait, for these other schemes to be effective. You can get the best brains in every borough council, in every city and town, and you can get the sympathy of all the people, and you could find work for a large proportion of men straight away. It may not be the kind of work that everybody would prefer, but, at any rate, the men would be in work. As said in an earlier speech this afternoon on another aspect, I think we are taking a very considerable risk. On Friday I listened to a great many of the speeches that were made, and I remember in particular listening to a speech by the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He made a very short but very effective speech. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is no fool. He has been a long time in contact with public opinion in Glasgow. He is an old personal friend of my own, and I value his opinion. What did he say! He said I have to go back to Glasgow and I have to say to the people in Glasgow, "This House cannot help you."
If responsible Members of this House are going back to masses of men in the country and take their courage in both hands and say to them, "This House cannot help them," then we are going to be face to face with a situation which may be dangerous. When the War was on this House never had recesses of the length we are going to have now, because we felt that the men who were fighting at the front required the constant attention of this House in providing them with everything necessary. In the same way, when you have so large a proportion of the community fighting unemployment, fighting poverty, it did not help for this House to separate so long, unless at the same time they can provide an effective remedy. I do not want to enter upon the theoretical argument. What the House wants to do is to do something effective and practical at once. I am quite certain that if the Government consider it and set up at once—by at once I mean to-morrow or the next day—the Act is on the Statute Book and the Minister of Labour could send out a telegram to-morrow netting up these Committees all over the country and the Prime Minister could say that the Government were willing to provide a certain sum of money which this House might agree upon for the work. I am not claiming any more than that, but I do claim that it is a practical suggestion, and a suggestion that this House could very well carry out in view of the season of the year which we are now approaching, and I think we would do ourselves credit. The hon. Member for Bridgeton would agree that if we did that it would be something to show that we are doing our very best to deal with the practical problem. It would be very much more than futile debates in this House as to how one system, private enterprise, or another system, public enterprise, would solve this question. I would respectfully move this reduction of £100 in order to draw attention to this practical suggestion. I hope very much my hon. Friend the Minister of Labour may give it his sympathy and sympathetic attention.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is not my intention to-night to deal with the particular administrative problem to which my hon. Friend has just directed the attention of the House. He has been dealing with this important problem mainly from the point of view of the unemployed man. My
object in intervening this morning is to call the attention of the House and of the Minister, in particular, to the very grave problem which concerns the local authorities in very many areas in this country where unemployment is most grave at the present moment. This subject has emerged in a number of Debates that have taken place and by no one has it been more strongly forced upon the attention of the House than by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson). In no case do Ministers appear to me to have faced this problem at all. This is no new problem. It is a problem which was brought, before the late Government by a very representative deputation which waited, I think, upon the late Prime Minister, on which occasion the representatives of local authorities pointed out how serious the situation was. In the course of the Debates during the present Session we have had a variety of answers on the part of the Government. We have been told that the loans which are being made available to authorities are going to lighten the burden, that by giving short loans repayable in a period of time of 10 years the situation is being immediately eased and that these authorities must be content with that contribution from the central Government, It is also pointed out that the works which are in contemplation under various Government schemes are likely to be a contribution towards the same object, but I am surprised at the main answer which has been given, I think on Friday last, by the Minister of Labour when it was suggested that the burden which now falls mainly upon these authorities should be to some extent transferred to the Exchequer. He pointed out that it came to the same thing that if the Exchequer shouldered the burden the subject had to pay simply in taxes, and that made no difference to him as it was simply relieving him of rates. But this ignores the fundamental point of the problem, which is that the problem is concentrated in certain areas. There are some well-defined districts where unemployment is, at the present moment, abnormal as compared with anything we have ever experienced in this country. We are told that the percentage of unemployment in the shipbuilding trades is 40 per cent., and one can understand what that means to Clydeside or Barrow or the Tyne, and in the iron and steel trades you find that a situation
approximating in gravity prevails on the north-east coast, in Sheffield, and in several other parts of the country. In Sheffield 40 per cent, of the working population are out of work, and have been for more than a year, and the rates now exceed 23s. in the pound. Taking the rural districts on the confines of Sheffield, the rates now amount to 18s. 9d. in the pound. If it meant that when this crisis is at an end, of which there is no immediate prospect, that there would be a drop in the rates the situation would not be so serious, but these authorities are only able to keep the rates down to that figure by borrowing, and it means that the rates must remain at that figure for five or ten years. What the people are face to face with is that they are piling up a burden of rates which makes it impossible for the industries of these areas to survive at all. There are many business men on the other side of the House who will appreciate the point that rates amounting to 23s. in the pound are going to be a tremendous handicap on industry in the future. They are to hamper its recovery; indeed, they may prevent it recovering altogether. Many of us remember the removal of Yarrow's great works from the Thames, and the reason given was the heavy burden of rates.

Mr. LANSBURY: No, that was not the reason given by Yarrow's.

Mr. PRINGLE: That was one reason given at any rate. I am not putting it as the sole reason, but undoubtedly it is admitted on all hands that when you have in any locality an abnormal burden of rates it is very difficult for industry to survive, and we know that in the case of any undertaking that is in contemplation one factor which determines the selection of the site is the amount of local rates. I have no doubt whatever that if, as the result of the concentration of unemployment in those particular areas, you are to have abnormal rates for a long period of years, you are creating a situation which is making the recovery of industry in these places almost impossible for the future. I suggest, therefore, it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that it does not matter whether this burden is paid out of taxes or out of rates; I am now drawing attention to the immediate aspect of this problem which I think can be dealt with by the Government, and an aspect which the Government have up
to the present inadequately appreciated, and for which they have offered no adequate remedy at all. I hope the Minister will be able to announce that the Government is giving further attention to the matter. He did me the courtesy of asking me what I was to speak about in this Debate and I informed him what aspect I was to deal with. I hope, therefore, he will be able to give some assurance on behalf of the Government that before the House meet again, the Government will be in a position to put some more tangible proposals before the House.

5.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I should like, if I may, to reply very shortly to the two speeches which have just been made, and which constitute a real contribution to this subject. First of all, as to the suggestion as to the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 and the revival of the distress committees, this was one of the very first things we considered when the Unemployment Committee was set up. The Act is in operation at the present moment: it is kept alive, mainly for Hollesley Bay and Ockenden, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; but, generally speaking, the distress committees have ceased to function. The work which those committees used to do is now being done in another way. The distress committees had no money. They could accept voluntary funds, and on one occasion, I think, they received a grant from the Government of about £300,000, but they had no funds of their own, and they could only initiate relief works through the local authorities. Anybody familiar with this matter knows that the Unemployment Grants Committee have a two-fold method of operation—first, by means of schemes, and, secondly, by CO per cent, grants in aid of wages; this Committee are placing in the hands of the corporations, acting, as a rule, in conjunction with the Unemployment Committees, of the Labour Exchanges large sums of money, and many corporations have great difficulty now, not so much in finding sufficient money, because Lord St. David's Committee has considerable funds at its disposal, but in discovering plans for useful work. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I assure my friends that that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I cannot
involve myself in a controversy in details of that kind across the Floor. The work is being efficiently done. The local authorities and corporations have loyally prepared numerous schemes and secured funds from the Unemployment Grants Committee so that they are enabled to put their schemes when approved in operation: that it is not necessary, therefore, to set up the distress committee again. They would, in fact, be less a help than a hindrance. There was another function the distress committees were intended to discharge, namely, to compile a register of unemployed persons in each area. This work of registration which the distress committee was intended to discharge is being more effectively carried out under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the information we secure thereby. So much for the distress committees: and with the best will in the world to accept fruitful suggestions from any quarter I am very much afraid we cannot look to any help from the proposal of my hon. Friend opposite.
As to the necessitous areas I do not wish that what I said last Friday should be misunderstood: I was very careful to indicate, in answer to an interjection, that the thesis I endeavoured to put forward was on broad lines and must not be confined to the special point of the difference between one rate area and another area. Many Members of the House urge the claims of the ratepayer; but they forget that the taxpayer has Claims too: in other words, that if the ratepayer's pocket is not bottomless the taxpayer's is not either. When we face the more difficult problem suggested by the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), that as between one rateable area and another there is inequality, then we arrive at a more tangible problem. Now one of the proposals suggested, and which we have been putting in operation, is a solution of the difficulty by way of loans. It has been objected that the loan solution is not a very sound one. Well, it has carried us through last winter and in these difficult times any scheme that works for the time being is of some merit: and when it is suggested, as it is in certain quarters, that we should drop the loan policy altogether and simply pour into the hands of the guardians large sums of money from central sources, I should like to draw the notice of the House to what was said by
the president of the Poor Law Unions at a recent meeting. He speaks with great experience and has had, I believe, a lifelong connection with this kind of work. He says: "I would remind those of this meeting who feel that the council has not been militant enough [i.e., in demanding money from the Central Government] that this association stands for local government and the preservation of the guardians." I say that you cannot stand for a policy of local control and a policy of nationalisation at the same time. If you ask the nation which placed this work in your hands to take it back again by making unemployment a national responsibility, or if you ask the Government to bear the cost of a large proportion of your work, you must be content to give up local control. As the Prime Minister announced: "The whole system of local government will break down if the people who are responsible for local expenditure are not also responsible for the raising and spending the necessary money. Nationalisation and local control cannot live together." That issue has to be faced by those who are always demanding that large sums of money should be poured into local administration from national sources. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) says that, accepting for the moment our present system of the raising of the necessary funds locally by means of rates, there is great injustice between one area and another. That is the same point that has been pressed upon our notice with a great deal of force by the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on many occasions. We are thoroughly alive to the difficulty, but the matter is by no means so easy as might appear at first sight; and I would like to give my friends an instance of the kind of difficulty that arises. Take the more or less similar towns of Rotherham and Walsall. Rotherham has about 70,000 and Walsall about 96,000 of population. Both are industrial towns. The unemployment bears a fair proportion to the population, 3,000 in Rotherham at the end of October, and 5,000 in Walsall. Now those areas are fairly alike. The paupers represent the same proportion to the population, 7,000 and 9,000. Yet, though those two areas are so much alike, in Rotherham the rates for the relief of the poor are in the present year 4s. 6d., and rates for all other purposes other than education are 11s. 6d., while in Walsall the
rates for the relief of the poor are 10s. 11d. and for other purposes 5s. Id., almost exactly the reverse. I do not want to go into that and discuss it. I give it as an instance to show that, when you try and probe local rating differences and suggest adjustments, you discover the most extraordinary disparities. We have appointed a Committee only recently to examine the question. How soon that Committee will be able to come to a conclusion I cannot say, but I very much hope, as the hon. Gentleman did himself, that when the House meets again we may be in a position to make some announcement on the subject.
Now a word or two of a general character on the Vote. The Vote in general is a Vote with regard to unemployment and, in dealing with the Estimate as I was enabled to do somewhat fully last Friday, I mentioned not only the Government programme actually involved in the Vote but also, as indicated on page 3, the general expenditure forming the whole Government programme other than and beyond the particular expenditure of £1,070,000 involved in the Supplementary Estimate. I think it is germane to refer to the two battleships which have just been announced as about to be laid down forthwith. I cannot say these ships form part of the general Government programme for dealing with unemployment. I do not put the announcement on that basis; but I believe the House would like to know what the effect of laying down those two battleships will be as far as the great problem we have to face is concerned. The two battleships will be constructed on the Tyne and Mersey, and large orders for machinery and armaments will be placed in Sheffield, Clydebank, and Barrow, all areas with a high unemployment figure. As the case of Barrow has been mentioned often by the hon. Member for Barrow I hope he will make a note of the fact that Barrow's difficult unemployment problem should be favourably affected by the orders to be placed in respect of the construction of those two capital ships. There will be ten millions spent in wages and 500 firms will be interested in the orders. During the first three months 4,000 to 5,000, mounting up before long to 40,000, men will be employed; and over the whole period of three years 21,000 men will be engaged. Then I mentioned the programme of reconditioning and
acceleration of contracts which under normal circumstances would not be begun until somewhat later; and I am now able to announce that the Admiralty are undertaking their share in this programme, and during the winter work under four categories will be put in hand, repair of dockyard machinery, repair of buildings, reconditioning of guns and acceleration of Government contracts. That will involve a cost of something like £365,000 and will supply 5,600 men with work over a considerable period. [An HON.MEMBER: Why not sink the Navy and give them all work?"] I do not think that is the kind of work that is desirable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the taxation of the people adds to the wealth of the country?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is not relevant. The areas affected will include the dockyard towns such as Portsmouth, Devonport, Sheerness, Rosyth and also Barrow. Orders will also go to the big industrial areas including Birmingham, Glasgow, Sheffield and the north-east district; and so far as expediting contracts for clothing are concerned, the woollen trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire will come in for their share of the orders. The Home Office also announce certain accelerated building work, together with repairs to buildings including police stations, employing something like 250 men for three months. I imagine that workmen engaged in that kind of work will find it as remunerative and satisfactory as any other work. I want to say a last word about the Manchester and Liverpool road. Negotiations with the local authorities are proceeding. I believe one such meeting took place in the north recently and another is due to take place shortly in London. With regard to the one and a half millions which the Government are authorising from the Road Fund for the purpose of the road, the Committee will recollect that in my speech on 30th November my statement was to the effect that the one and a half millions was in addition to the £5,300,000 already available from the Road Fund. This is not quite in accordance with the note on page 3 of the Estimate. Directly I realised this on Friday last, I caused inquiries to be made. I was
not able to explain the discrepancy on Friday, and I now take the earliest opportunity of doing so. The real position is that when the present Government took over the question the total expenditure to which the Road Fund could be held to be definitely committed in respect of all suitable schemes was £3,800,000. That is the, figure which appears on the Paper. That left approximately one and a half millions available for the Manchester-Liverpool road. On the information supplied to me from the Ministry of Transport prior to my speech on 30th November. I made a statement that the existing suitable schemes apart from the Manchester-Liverpool road amounted to £5,300,000, but the corrected figure is £3,800,000. The Manchester-Liverpool road is an additional scheme for which the Government have sanctioned a further 1½ millions from the Fund. That concludes all I wish to say on this Vote for the moment. It will, of course, be in the memory of the House tint we had discussed this matter fully last Friday and arrived at the Vote without undue pressure being put on the Committee in the matter, and I do hope v e may be able to get the Vote without further delay this morning.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to say, first, that apparently when battleships are concerned we can find the money. The Government are planking down this 10 or 12 millions for the purpose. I also want to point out that I had hoped that in making speeches that will be reported, this figure will not be flung at the unemployed as being money to be spent on unemployment, for the total number of people that is to be set to work is 4,000.

Sir M. BARLOW: 4,000 to 5,000.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not at all mind whether you say 4,000 or 5,000, but I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that when you are dealing with necessitous areas and what is being done by boards of guardians, that this House ought to recognise that you are facing a situation rather worse than was faced by the House in 1832. At that time the legislators were faced with the difficulty that workers all over the country were being paid such low wages that their wages had to be made up out of public funds, and the new Poor Law was insti-
tuted to put an end to that. It is extraordinary that we have got back to that condition and a little worse, and the extraordinary thing is that the Government of the day is encouraging boards of guardians to do these things. We had the spectacle of a captain of industry like the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) telling us it would be a good thing if the working people who were out of work went to their employers and asked them to take the money they drew from the employment exchanges and count is a part of the week's wages.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: No.

HON. MEMBERS: He did say it.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman did not make the statement quite complete.

Mr. LANSBURY: The main effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that the money paid through the Labour Exchanges should be given in aid of wages. That is all I say. The extraordinary thing to me is that a gentleman holding the position of the right hon. Gentleman belonging to the Manchester School can stand up and make such a proposition. I would ask the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) if he thinks this is an economic proposition that wealth should be partly paid for out of rates or taxes. I want to point out what private enterprise during 80 years has brought us to. You have made a circle, and we have come back again to where we were. That is a condition of things this House ought to sit down and consider, but not at 20 minutes past five in the morning. The House should give time to the consideration of how to get out of that position. The temporary Measure you propose is that you should give us loans. The right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench tell us to borrow money for what ought to be a national burden. Some districts are rated higher than others, and the argument that local authorities should bear some part of this burden shows that the people who make this sort of statement have not taken the trouble to consider the question. Not only do districts vary, but this problem has grown as society has grown, and what was good in the reign of Elizabeth, when the burden was put on the parish, and in 1832, or later, when it was put on the union, does not meet the case to-day.
Society has so grown, and industry is so universal over the country, that you must look at the problem from the national point of view. If the cost of this problem is put upon the nation, then those parts which are not affected will have to help to pay for those which are affected. It is clear that the whole nation is responsible for the condition of things in which we find ourselves. When the Minister responsible issued orders in Scotland that outdoor relief might be given to able-bodied men, I thought this is something like a revolution. I have sat on the opposite side when I was here before and been chastised by Mr. John Burns with regard to the principles which had been enunciated in 1832. Now the whole Treasury Bench are treating these principles with contempt. They have encouraged boards of guardians to treat them with contempt, for, according to your own laws, able-bodied men should not get treatment outside institutions except in sudden emergencies, and a sudden emergency has lasted in the case of hundreds of thousands of men for two years. That shows how ridiculous these Regulations have become. The Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan) made the same point about the Scottish workman. You have now brought the British workman, generally speaking, not only to accept this belief, but you have smashed the idea of hatred of the Poor Law. You have insisted that the workman shall come to the Poor Law guardians because your unemployment pay is so miserable, and he has no alternative but to do that. In doing this, you have smashed up every principle laid down 80 or 90 years ago. The result is that you have not only bankrupted the unions, but you have also robbed the workmen of their morale, especially the young men and women.
I come from a district where we are accused of doing this for a set purpose. We do not. I hate giving money away for nothing. I hate even giving it to ex-Cabinet Ministers for nothing, for I know we cannot get anything for nothing, because somebody has to produce it. But what you are doing to-day is accustoming masses of young people to live, and expect to live, without working, and to live in the meanest sort of way. Young people of the middle and upper classes go on with their education because it is considered the right thing for them not to go
to work too early, but children who expect to go to work when they grow up are now thrown upon the streets, and you are piling up a problem of inefficiency and waste such as this country has never known before. You sit there and talk about economy and spend these £10,000,000 on battleships. If it were spent on continuing the education of the children, then you would have something in the future to thank God for. Instead, you are going to spend the money on destructive purposes.
I want to say a word or two about the Minister of Labour's statement with regard to the Unemployed Workmen Act. I suppose you think we are a great nuisance about this unemployment problem. I and Mr. Keir Hardie sat under the Gallery and we had something to do with getting that Bill put on the Statute Book. I know its limitations. I think it is no use for the ordinary able-bodied man and woman, and I think the work is better done through local authorities, but local authorities, as I shall show in a minute or two, suffer exactly the same as the people who administered the Unemployed Workmen Act—they cannot get money. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that districts have not sent in schemes. What we want to know is the number of authorities who have sent in schemes and for whom money has not been found. There is work being sent up to the tune of millions of pounds. This morning I am to go to various Ministries with a deputation to ask them to give us some money for these schemes. I think I suggested the deputation myself to my colleague from Poplar (Mr. March) because we said there has been a discussion in the House and the Minister of Labour has stated what great things are to be done. It would not matter whether you had the. Unemployed Workmen Act in vogue or go on, as now, with the borough and town councils, it is always money that is needed; but if this Government had thought this business out, or the late Government had thought it out, it would have been a different matter. I have heard two speeches by the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and I have heard these speeches at least six times at various deputations of ex-service men and others. People like me have been
talked dead by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry he is not here. This ringing of figures, this word spinning of schemes always leave me quite cold. You have wanted, I understand, to do something for the young people, very largely in land settlement in this country. When I advocated that here on the last occasion I was called a rather stupid sort of old chap who did not know what he was talking about. Now you have said to-night that you keep the Central Unemployed Body of London in being in order that Hollesley Bay may be kept going. That happened to be a derelict estate in Suffolk which was taken in hand through the generosity of the late Joseph Fells, and on that estate some hundreds of men were put to work, and as a result numbers of them were quite willing to become smallholders on another sort of co-operative settlement if we had been allowed to establish it.
Although I am a Socialist, we know we could not put Socialism into operation in patches. We have to wait until we have converted people like the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). We are going to have him as one of our organisers. We are going to use his brains intelligently one of these days for the benefit of the community. We tried to get an estate where the men on this Holesley Bay Colony could go, an estate which had been acquired and was ready for them to work on a cooperative basis. That was knocked on the head, because the scheme cost a lot of money. In dealing with unemployment any scheme will cost a lot of money. You cannot deal with it cheaply, no matter how you try. When the late Lord Northcliffe held an Empire exhibition, the best fruit shown was fruit that came from trees planted by London unemployed at Hollesley Bay. Why should the Government not have done what we stupid people in Poplar asked them to do at least a couple of years ago to save the young single men of IS years and upwards who were out of work? They should have said, "We do not care to give you money for nothing, but we are willing to take you to settlements in the country to till the land, and if possible to turn you into smallholders, and we will pay you decently and house you decently." The Government are always saying that we on this side never put any schemes before them. This scheme has
been put before not only the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) but also the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the late Minister for Labour. Again and again I have been to them and have begged them to do this, and I want to get the present Minister of Labour to listen to me this morning, in order that something may be done, first to preserve the morale of these young men, and secondly, to do something towards bringing some of the waste pieces of the earth in this country into cultivation. I am not in favour of emigration as a panacea for unemployment, but if people want to emigrate, I will help them; only if you want to do that, you could not do better than to have the young men trained in agriculture. You cannot say that this has not been put up to you. It has been, times without number, and I am now putting it publicly in the House of Commons.
I would like to say further that the central unemployed body not only ran Hollesley Bay, but they did useful work in various parts of the country for the unemployed. It may be argued that a number of these men would not want to do ordinary land work, but another side of the land business that I would like to see taken in hand is the matter of the boys and girls in the country districts. I was amazed when an hon. Gentleman said that the boys and girls in the villages grew up with the intention of leaving the villages, and he said that was a very good thing. I say it is a very bad thing. No nation in history has ever been able to exist permanently that gave up tilling the soil, and in the case of our country, a much greater number has got to go back to the soil. Another hon. Gentleman said on the first day of the Session that it might very Well be that the nation would have a higher standard of life all over, but that some of the people at the top would have to have a lower standard because of the changed economic conditions of the world. Now, I want to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that when the children are turned out of the schools nest March, the figures of unemployment will go up again Large numbers will not be able to find work, and especially will that be true in the country districts. Why should you not start organising technical training for these children in agricultural pursuits?
Denmark 70 years ago was the poorest country agriculturally in the world. Today she is the richest country agriculturally. Nobody is very rich in Denmark, and nobody is very poor. [An HON. MEMBER: "Taxation of land values."] Yes, but they have also organised agriculture, and they have trained their children not to run away from their homes, but to get their living outside their own doors. That could be done here. It is no use saying that land in Suffolk could not be turned to the same purpose as land in Denmark. To tell me that you are bound,to be dependent upon Denmark for butter, eggs, and so on, is to tell me what I will never believe, because the land in the eastern counties is infinitely better than any land that I saw in Denmark. If you tell me that you must have a market for your coal and other goods, why not have the market here instead of sending your coal and goods to Denmark. It can be done. You have only to set about doing it, and this is the time it ought to be done instead of allowing the children to grow up in the ruination in which they are just now. I want to speak of the young people in the towns. I do not understand the apathetic sort of indifference there is about it. I am not charging hon. Members with want of sympathy. I am sure if I came to hon. Members this morning each would give me a big subscription to help to feed some unemployed people, because at the bottom you are as warm-hearted as anyone. But you will not see. You will not sec that you are driving those masses down and down, and that you are creating more and more of them every day. Take the young people from 14 to 18. I ask any of you to go through an industrial part of London, or any other industrial part, and walk up and down the streets. I live on the great main road in the East End. Before I came to this House I used to spend two hours every morning at a desk facing the main road. Now and then I got up and looked out. Every morning I would see multitudes of young people walking aimlessly up and down. I meet them when I am coming here early in the morning. I submit you are heaping up, not only an economic problem, but a moral problem, which those who come after us will find in-solvable. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) was told that the
Government was sympathetically considering the matter. Give up considering, and start doing something. That is what is needed. It only requires a little money, and I would say to every young person who draws unemployment pay, "You must day by day get some training"—physical training many of them want.
I would give them training suitable to their brain power. Education does not mean teaching everybody the same kind of thing; you have to make your training suitable to the person you want to train. I want to speak now about your own national jobs you are doing and the shocking rates of pay you are paying the men and the long hours you are working them. On these great arterial roads, about which you talk so much, you pay them a little over 50s. a week, provided the men can work the whole week through. They work at least from 80 to 84 hours a week, because you must count the time the man gets up in the morning and the time he gets back home again. You are not giving these men a subsistence wage even when they work the full week. Is there anybody on the opposite side of the House who could work and keep himself in good condition and maintain a wife and children on 50s. a week? They have to pay just now in our district and in other parts from 16s. to 18s. a week for rent. I am perfectly certain there is no one on that side of the House if you face it out fairly and squarely would agree that it was the right thing to do, and I want to press that you should reconsider these wages. There is only one other thing and that is about the schemes. I hold in my hand a document which we sent to the authorities somewhere about 1920. We asked for a dry dock from Manchester Road Bridge into the South Dock Basin at Poplar, which was an improvement. The Dock Company, or rather the Port of London Authority, has agreed it is necessary to have powers to carry it through if only the money is found for it. Why you should find or guarantee money for the South Eastern and Chatham Railway and not for an authority of this kind—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Sudan!"]—I do not know. We wanted a new street at Cuba Street, Millwall, and Manilla Street. We wanted a diversion of Preston Road and part of Manchester
Road. We also wanted to alter the levels in East Ferry Road and Manchester Road and Stewart Street. Outside the borough we wanted to enlarge Shadwell Old Basin, a new street at St. George's in the East and a new street by Old Gravel Lane. The total cost of all these works—and they would have employed thousands of workmen, for it was nearly all unskilled work—waa four millions. We have never been able to get a move on in any of these things.
I will tell the Minister some others. We want £62,000, £24,000 to complete a paving programme, £8,000 for a painting scheme, and £35,000 for electricity mains. I would like the hon. Member for Hampstead to listen to this. We have a municipal electricity works at Poplar which produces electricity cheaper than any other place in the Metropolitan area, and we are trying to get electricity into every poor person's home in the borough. We think it would be a good thing in this time of stress to get the money to put down all the mains and so on. We have not got it, but we are trying to get it. That is remunerative work. Then in poor districts there is always road work to be done. It is not true, and I want to emphasise this, that the boroughs cannot find work. They can, and my object in reading out these things concerning one of the boroughs in London is to show that there is work and to ask you for help to get it done. We want to improve the recreation grounds and we want to do further work on electricity mains. We have done some of our electricity main work, but we want the other to be done and we want the money from you. We do not want to hear any more that there are no schemes. I just want to say this in conclusion: I say it in all seriousness to the House because I have to say it to myself every day —and I would like to say it to the hon. Member for Hampstead. Many of you are captains of industry, many of you are the men who think that we belittle what you have done, what you try to do, on behalf of the workers of the country. But the greatest charge against the capitalist system is that it has failed in the one function that it claims to exist to carry through, namely, to provide work, maintenance, and decent conditions for the mass of the population. You are back to the bad old days of the old Poor
Law, only worse, because you have a bigger population whom you attempt to educate. You think this population can be kept under by the policeman, the soldier, the Navy, and so on. So it can. But the greatest foe of England, the power that will pull it down, the power you have to fear, is not an outside enemy, it is an enemy from within, economic and moral decay brought about by a system which has grown out of your system, which makes people who are half-educated think they can live on doles, on unemployment pay, and so on. A similar condition of things pulled down old Rome, but this is the first time that democracy has been educated, and it is the first time in history that a mass of men like ourselves can come to stand for a new social order. I believe the world is at the parting of the ways. I believe our country has an opportunity of taking the lead, and it is because I believe that, I am here talking to you men to try to make you see as I see. I tell you, who are cleverer than we are—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Yes, I admit it. I tell you that the reason you have got gifts is not that you may be richer in money but richer in service to the common weal, to serve the whole of humanity, and not merely yourselves.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Prior to the Election I was an unemployed person; I was signing the register at the Employment. Exchange every morning. I have been living in the midst of the misery and evils of unemployment for the last two years, and to talk about distress committees and the methods you have adopted up to the present to deal with unemployment is sheer nonsense. You talk about sympathy with the unemployed. Do you understand the lives of the unemployed people? I am afraid not, I am sure many of you have seen a person suffering from toothache, and you have offered that person sympathy, with the natural result that that person wanted to do something to you in return. There is no use talking to starving men and women about your sympathy: you have to do something practical if you are to assist these people at all. What do you propose? You propose to spend a sum that will not give every unemployed person £l per head. That will not do. You charge us with not being practical people, that while we are willing to criticise your
efforts we are not anxious to show you what can be done. I believe we can, but I would like to be persuaded that the Government are anxious to do it. I would like to understand clearly that the men who are here this morning on the Treasury Bench are the real rulers of this country to-day Speaking now for many workers who are unemployed on the banks of the Clyde, I say they do not believe it. They believe the real governing power of this country is the Federation of British Industries, and that that power is greater than the Government. While the late Prime Minister was felling the Clyde workmen who went to interview him to be audacious in the future and never to go back to the old days, and while we were attempting to put that into practice by refusing to accept the conditions the employers were attempting to enforce upon us, those at the head of the organisation I have referred to and who are represented in this House to a very large extent—their intentions were to bring the working classes down to the pre-war level, [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I want to say to the hon. Members opposite what has been said by one of their own Members. He said during the Debate, referring to the shipbuilding industry, that, in his opinion, many years would elapse before it would be possible to absorb the shipbuilding workmen, even if you had normal conditions. I am going to prove it to you.
6.0 p.m.
In 1913 shipbuilding was fairly busy, and still there was a large percentage of unemployed, something like five per cent. During the War, partly by the aid of the Government, because of their great necessity for providing the means for the destruction of human life and property, the shipbuilding employers added to their establishments to an enormous extent, and that was aided by the anxiety of the employers to escape the Excess Profits Duty. The result was, that at the end of the War and from that time you were faced with new conditions in the shipbuilding industry, and the Clyde workmen understand that because of development, along the lines of welding machines and riveting machines, there is to be a displacement of labour, and 50 per cent, of the shipbuilding workers will never again enter the workshops. What are you going to do? I am only an ordinary workman, after all, but I be-
lieve I could suggest to the Government a method by which you can alleviate the suffering of the working class. I am not anxious to claim one of the big warships for the Clyde. It is perfectly true that in the hands of every Member for Glasgow, including the Prime Minister, there was placed a telegram in which the Lord Provost of the great city of Glasgow suggested that we should use every means in our power to get something done here in the House to see that a ship should be sent to the Clyde. Well, we have not done it. I am not anxious to see a warship on the Clyde. I am anxious to see warships become things of the past altogether. A warship means that you have got to lose the wealth created by some other industry. When you have produced your ship you have no return for the work you have done and there is, in addition, the expenditure for maintaining and manning the ship. I am going to suggest that this might be done. Not only have Members on the opposite side stated during debates, but is it admitted by the highest authorities both in this country and in America that the country that is going to be really powerful in the future is the country that is going to possess the greatest oil supplies in the world, and we can easily understand that. Even the workman on the Clyde understands why there is a danger of war in the future. I am anxious to get some kind of work for the starving workers on the Clyde-side, and I am going to suggest you should consider the advisability of acting in conjunction with the town councils of places like Glasgow and the Tyneside and Jarrow to build a fleet of oil vessels. If oil is going to be the basis of our wealth in the future, then surely the Government, acting with those town councils, might provide a fleet of a dozen oil vessels to look after the oil industry in the interests of this country. Yon require oil carrying ships for the present Navy. If you are going to increase it you will want more and more oil. If you are anxious to have necessary work done you will proceed to build the ships I have suggested. It will be work that will be beneficial, and you will get a return for it. There will be no waste. The workmen on the Clyde understand the position better than you give them credit for. They have sent us
here and told us that if you will not listen they will take every means of attaining their hopes, and men on these benches will be at the head of the men when they take that step if you refuse to give due attention to their demands now.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I want to express my disappointment with the attitude of the Minister, and I am afraid the unemployed people who are watching this House will find very cold comfort when they turn to the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning. The Minister mentioned in addition to this Vote the fact that two capital ships were going to be built. I do not know if the Minister have ever been to the pictures and seen the film featuring Charlie Chaplin as a glazier preceded by young Jackie Coogan who breaks the windows for Charlie to repair. If we are going to find work on that principle by building ships which, according to many of the experts, are obsolete to-day, it is analogous to breaking windows to find work for the glaziers. I am afraid we cannot, in this House, afford to ignore the psychology of the unemployed at the present time. I have to-day received a letter from the border city of Carlisle, which I am proud to represent, to say that the unemployed marchers are still going daily through that city on their way to London, and that those who are caring for and feeding them as they pass through are beginning to notice a distinct change in the temper of the men. They are at last exhibiting signs of having come to the end of their patience, and I would ask the Government to bear in mind that it will have possibly in the future to deal with a very difficult position at a time when this House will not be sitting. The men themselves will not find comfort in the Government's proposals. You are not going to do any good by building warships. You will pay wages in more printed money. If you were producing wealth by the efforts of the unemployed men you would not get the inflation consequent on an increased output of paper money. The present policy is one of making more difficulties in the future than we have had in the past, and I am disposed to believe that what has been done for the unemployed men up to now has not been purely out of regard for them. My opponent made during the election a statement that the dole was given as a means of staving off trouble,
and I am disposed to think there is something in that particular point, but you cannot by Votes, such as we are passing to-night, of a million and odd pounds dispose of a problem of something like two millions of people depending on what is coming from the State to keep them. I suggest it would be very much better indeed if the men were engaged on productive work. It has been suggested this morning that there are schemes ready to be done. In Croydon, where I live, I pass up every morning a street so broken that it is dangerous to walk on the pavement after dark. As I pass out of that street I regularly see a queue of unemployed men waiting to register. Would not a statesmanlike Government link up the requirements of the town with the needs of the unemployed and the resources of the State? That would be the sensible method of dealing with the difficulty. You would then have men, instead of drawing unemployment dole for which they give no service in return, at least doing something, even if you do not. get a full economic return for the money you nay. It would also have a very great effect of absorbing some of that large reservoir of unemployed men and women who are not only a menace to themselves, but a danger to the people who are in work.
I am not indisposed to believe that there is quite a large number of employers who like to see this reservoir kept full. It enables them, when they are bargaining with the workmen, to say: If you do not like the conditions, we shall not alter our minds. They can say this because they know that outside the factories there are thousands of men with wives and children who want bread and who would be tempted to take the jobs of the men who are fighting for better conditions. The Government, in not taking heed of all these things, are not pursuing a wise course. I cannot under stand for the life of me why people who want to judge these things impartially do not accept the view that public effort is better than private effort. In every case in which it has been tried public effort has proved successful. Take the railways during the War. During the Election, when the Labour Party were talking about nationalisation, the other side said: "We have had a taste, of nationalisation. Do you not remember what happened when the Government had control during the War?" They were
trying to make the people believe that control during the War was a fair test of State management in peace time. The Government took over the railway service, not to improve it, but to restrict it for the public because it could not trust the private companies to offer the transport that was necessary to enable the sailors and soldiers to win the War. I suggest that the same public enterprise which was successful in taking us out of the difficulties of the national crisis should be devoted to solving the problem of unemployment. If you devote it to the housing question at once there will be work for all the building employes. In my constituency, at the invitation of some poor people in a working class district, I visited them and found about 26 families living in a small court in houses half of which were upstairs and half downstairs, houses with no back doors, and windows which might drop out. In the centre of that court were six so-called sanitary conveniences facing the front door of the houses with no doors on them, and every man, woman and child bad to use them practically in public. Not far away was building land, in the same town were builders, and in the same town were building materials. Nobody harnessed these three things up, because it would not pay private enterprise at the moment. Yet the Government is willing to allow these things to continue because it is not willing to use the power the State possesses. The landlord draws his rent, but. throws on the State any liability for dealing with evils that arise out of these conditions. You can prove by statistics —and I can show it in regard to that city —that infant mortality is almost in exact mathematical ratio to the number of houses per acre. In one district I discovered that the death-rate of infants was 120 per thousand, compared with 20 per thousand in a district where the housing conditions are good. If that means anything, it means that by the maintenance of the present housing conditions you are deliberately sacrificing human life on the altar of private enterprise. Everybody who puts up with the present system is a baby-killer, figuratively, if not literally, and it is high time that a Government-which affects to represent the good of the people should step in to destroy this state of affairs. You could pay for new houses by the saving in the cost of health services in the course of a few years. The
£200,000,000 you are now spending annually on health services means that you are trying to cure something that could be prevented, and if the Government are wise they will scrap these ideas of throwing to the workers sops and crusts, and will tackle the problem fundamentally and change the present system. I hope the Government will reconsider the position.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: I have been endeavouring to find in the Debate some simple points of agreement. For three weeks now we have been listening to Debates on unemployment; at least I and a good many others have been listening. It seems to be a conventional method of commencing a speech on unemployment to express sympathy with the unemployed. If I were the Speaker I might save a great deal of time in this House by putting, as a first Resolution, that every Member of this House deeply sympathises with the unemployed. That would be agreed to with acclamation, and it would save a good deal of time, as nobody need refer to it further. Another point on which we might get considerable agreement is that the efforts of the late Government in dealing with unemployment were hopelessly inadequate. A Resolution to that effect would be carried, so far as the country, at any rate, was concerned, by an overwhelming majority. The advantage would be that, having passed this Resolution, we need spend no more time abusing the late Government. They met a fate which they richly deserved, at least a number of them did; a good many others escaped just in time. Now, I think the next point of agreement we might get would be that unemployment is a matter of the greatest urgency. I think also that Members will agree with this point, that this Session has been called only to deal with problems of urgency. I think also they will agree that I am logical at least in arguing that, as this Session has been called to deal with urgent problems, unemployment being an urgent problem, it would be very wrong of us to adjourn for a matter of two months and leave this problem in its present condition.
We have just gone througn a General Election in which unemployment played a considerable part. In many parts of London—I am only speaking for London—
posters which appeared for the Conservative candidates said, "Work at good wages. Vote for the Conservative candidate and employment for1 all." Some of these posters were illustrated by fearful and wonderful pictures. I read a few days ago, in an old newspaper, which dealt with the opening of this Session, about "Red" speeches in the House of Commons by the Scottish Members. There was a good deal of Red literature during the General Election—I would just draw the attention of the hon. Members opposite to the literature issued on their behalf. That is what we call Red literature. The people at the end of the Election gave their decision. I frankly accept that decision. I respect that decision. In my own constituency it was a very wise decision; in some other constituencies it was not so wise. Because I respect that decision I am not going to spend any of my time shaking my fist and getting angry at the hon. Members on the other side of the House I prefer to shake my fist at the stupid people outside who sent them here. The trouble lies partly in that some of the hon. Members have hearts that are right, but their pockets will not let them. Many taking part in this discussion have referred to the inherent evil of a solution by loans. The Minister has referred to a solution by loans, but that is not a solution at all. The Minister followed it by saying that it carried us through last winter. Was he satisfied with the way in which we got through last winter? The hon. Members on this side of the House will not be satisfied if we get through the present winter in the same way as we got through last winter. Then the right hon. Gentleman made the unfortunate point that if large sums of money were paid into the funds of the local authorities the whole machinery of local government might break down. Why should it? Large sums are paid into local funds for educational purposes, and the educational machinery does not break down. The suggestion of building two battleships in order to provide work for the unemployed comes somewhat strange from people who have said that unemployment is abnormal owing to the War. They are putting some of the unemployed to build battleships for the. next war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us have another little war!"] The Minister of Labour seems to have a
pleasant suggestion that a good deal of work will be got in repairing police stations. Is this with a view to increasing the accommodation? Before that is done, we might carry out certain structural alterations in Scotland Yard, so that burglars will not be able to enter. Yesterday morning I was one of a deputation which represented five or six very important parts of London. A deputation representing all these districts waited upon the Minister of Transport, and they put before him a scheme. I do not think it will now be possible to say that we on this side never put in schemes. The deputation, in which two hon. Members on the opposite of the House and myself took part, put forward the suggestion that excellent work would be found for thousands of unemployed by extending the tube northwards from Fins-bury Park to cover the districts of Wood Green, Tottenham, Enfield, Edmonton, etc. The congestion which takes place is well known. At Finsbury Park every evening thousands of workers are unable to continue their journey owing to the lack of transport facilities. The Minister of Transport replied very civilly and very courteously, and told us that he would look into the matter. But this question has been a question of importance in that district for 20 years to my knowledge, and we are getting tired of the eternal answer that people are looking into it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley): I am not only looking into it, but I am going there to-morrow afternoon.

Mr. MORRISON: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information. It is pleasantly refreshing to realise that we have got a Minister who takes such a practical step. I did not understand the lion. Gentleman to make a- promise this morning and I am, therefore, the more pleased that he is taking this step. I have put forward that suggestion, just as the deputation put it forward this morning. We do not wish merely to be destructive in criticism, but we realise at tile same time the misery, appalling want and destitution that exists. My pockets and, I doubt not, the pockets of the hon. Members on the other side of the House, are full of letters from respectable working people who have
been out of work for months. Christmas is coming on, and I should enjoy my Christmas dinner if they could sit down to a Christmas dinner, too—if I had the feeling that everybody in this country was sitting down to a Christmas dinner.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (seated): We have led the unemployed before; we will lead them again.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I am sure that the House agrees that this is scandalous treatment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (standing): It is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, that this should be allowed. [Interruption.] I have led the unemployed, I have been battened in the streets of Glasgow, and I will be again, if necessary. [Interruption.] Do you not think, because you sit there well fed and well clothed, that you are to treat us in this fashion. I will not stand it of the best men that England produces. [Interruption.] We have warned you calmly and reasonably, to the very best of our ability. We have stood insults that have been heaped upon us in this House by Gentlemen who fill the Benches opposite. You would think that we were not human, that we were not intelligent men. I come here from the Clyde and represent men who are a credit to the British Army—— [Interruption]. I represent men who stood between the on-rushing Germans and Paris. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame, brutal! "] We will fight you to the death. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but this is no joke. [Interruption.]
But man, proud man?
Drest in a little brief authority—
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence—like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep.

—[Interruption.]

Mr. NEWBOLD: Wait till your turn comes!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Treat them with contempt. We will fight them if necessary on the streets. If they will not give
us it constitutionally, we will take it unconstitutionally. This is only the beginning.

Mr. NEWBOLD: We will play their game all right.

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 61.

Division No. 44]
AYES.
[6.32 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Archer-Shee, Lieut. Colonel Martin
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Philipson, H. H.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Halstead, Major D.
Raine, W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harrison, F C.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Becker, Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roundel!, Colonel R. F.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell-Wells Sir Sydney


Blundell, F. N.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S- J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brass, Captain W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Houfton, John Piowright
Sandon, Lord


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bruton, Sir James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Smith, sir Allan M. (Croydon. South)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Edward
inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sparkes. H. W


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Cockerlil, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sutcliffe, T.


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cope, Major William
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson. F. C (Aberdeen, S.)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J, H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Huil)


Ednam, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Waring, Major Walter


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man. Withington)


Elveden, Viscount
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor, Viscount


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Winterton, Earl


Flanagan, W. H.
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Frederick


Forestier-Walker, L.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hit. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Furness, G. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Garland, C. S.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Gates, Percy
Paget, T. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir R. Park
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson. J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Amnion, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Sitch. Charles H.


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Broad, F. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thornton, M.


Brotherton, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Watts Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Buckle, J.
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood. Colonel Josiah C.


Burgess, S.
M'Entee, V. L.
Welsh, J. C.


Cairns, John
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Westwood, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Middleton, G.
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwelity)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wilson, R- J. (Jarrow)


Foot, Isaac
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Amnion and Mr. Morgan


Groves, T.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Jones


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Question put accordingly, "That" '£1,070,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 77.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[6.37 a.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Pennefather, De Fonbianque


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Penny, Frederick George


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Archer-Shee, Lieut. Colonel Martin
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipson, H. H.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'l.W.D'by)
Raine, W.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Halstead, Major D.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harrison, F, c.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remer, J. R.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Becker, Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Betterton, Henry B.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Houfton, John Plowright
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Bruton, Sir James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hurd, Percy A.
Sparkes, H. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N, (Ladywood)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clayton, G. C.
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Sutcliffe, T.


Cockerlli, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major William
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Doyle, H. Grattan
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dunnico, H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Waring, Major Walter


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ednam, Viscount
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wells, S R.


Elliot, capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Elveden, Viscount
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Windsor, Viscount


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Earl


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wise, Frederick


Fawkes, Major F, H.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Flanagan, W. H.
Nail, Major Joseph
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Forestler-Walker, L.
Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Furness, G. J.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Garland. C. S.
Paget, T. G.
Colonel Gibbs and Major


Gates, Percy
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Barnston.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike



NOES.


Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Middleton, G.


Amnion, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Muir, John W.


Bonwick, A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Murnin, H.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T, (Glasgow)
Newbold, J. T. W.


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J
Nichol, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Buckle, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Phillipps, Vivian


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Ritson, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, George
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
M'Entee, V. L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
McLaren, Andrew
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Stephen, Campbell


Sullivan, t.
Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Westwood, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thornton, M.
Wheatley, J.



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddn)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Pringle.


Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

WAYS AND MEANS [8th December].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply-granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £9,254,076 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution read a Second time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask you whether there are precedents for moving the closure after such a short discussion as we have had upon this Unemployment Vote. It is a fairly important Vote and may I ask you whether there is a precedent for accepting that Motion when no fewer than 30 Members rose in order to continue the Debate. It seems to me that as we have sat all night we might have at least allowed the Members on this side, who feel extremely keenly on this question of unemployment, to have their say and also the Minister of Labour.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. That concerns the Chair. It is a criticism of the House, which is never permitted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think we can agree with the Committee in that Resolution. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for making some sort of protest against the action, not of you, Sir, in the Chair—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is purely a formal Motion arising out of money which has been voted by the House.

An HON. MEMBER: May we, Mr. Speaker, move the Adjournment on this? Surely we can do so.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes,

Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Baldwin and Captain King.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented according, and read the First time; to be Bead a Second time To-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes before Seven o'Clock a.m.